Child Porn - Do We Go Overboard?

[Athena]

Kiddie porn is horrible stuff. The very thought of its creation turns my stomach. I believe those found guilty of manufacturing the stuff should get life sentences, if not death. I could even make a solid case for intensely harsh sentencing for distributors. However, I believe our war against the viewers might be becoming a bit extreme.

Now, before I get tomatoes thrown at me, first consider that simply viewing kiddie porn is a victimless crime. This pornography has already been created; there's no undoing that. It's already been distributed; there's no undoing that. If we burn every set of eyes that viewed the stuff at the stake, it still doesn't undo the damage done to the victim. We lump those who view child porn into the same group as child molestors, but there's a distinct difference - Child molestors are actively victimizing. Child porn viewers are not, and we can't even say with the slightest bit of confidence that these people will eventually graduate to molestation.

Of course, I'm not saying that the viewing of child porn should not be a crime, necessarily. I understand that we have an interest in curbing child porn from the market end, by penalizing demand. Still, there is a point at which that becomes counter-productive...and I worry that we may be reaching that point.

This article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html) describes the effort of the NY attorney general, who has successfully forced three major ISPs, Sprint, Verizon and Time Warner Cable, to drop or strictly limit their users' access to Usenet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet). Usenet is the home of a hundred thousand of, essentially, message boards (newsgroups) much like this one. But, because 88 of them - 88 out of 100,000 - were found to have images of child porn, the Attorney General pressured these ISPs to drop Usenet newsgroups and now calls for all ISPs to follow their lead. All this, even though...


What Time Warner Cable will do, Dudley said, is remove illegal content on its network when alerted by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (This is already required by law, has been standard business practice for many years, and is not a change in policy.)

So, in light of this, is dropping Usenet really necessary?

On the individual level, this man's life has been destroyed (http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?&articleid=1101074&format=&page=1&listingType=loc#articleFull) by false charges of child porn. Well, not entirely false - the porn WAS there, on his work lap-top, but completely unbeknownst to him. You see, it had been spammed onto his computer thanks to corrupted virus-protection software. As a result, the man lost his job, had charges filed against him, and his friends ran for the hills. He has endured unimaginable shaming and financial damage as the result of something that could have happened to anyone with a work lap-top.

So, as you can see, I'm not at all saying we should turn a blind eye to child porn. In fact, I'm advocating quite the opposite - losing our heads over child porn viewing diverts resources away from the actual victims and could easily turn into our very own witchhunt.

[Nell]

I don't know about making it legal at all. I can understand what Athena is saying to an extent. Child porn that has already been created cannott be undone, so why punish people that look at it? But I also see the point that no matter what these are real children who will continue to be victimized by perverrts looking at this porn. I know if there was child porn of me floating around out there I would hate it. I would continually worry, what if someone saw it that knew me or members of my family? My children even? That makes it go past a victimless crime.

[TheLittleFriend]

Sure, I've heard people saying looking at child porn is not criminal. I want to know the reason WHY people want to look at child porn. Why would they wanna look at toothless, toddler spreading legs on the bed? Children are bought here to cherish, love, and care.....not to make them out as sexual projects.

[celtic friend]

No way! Child porn exists because there is a demand for it. If it was not illegal to view the porn, then surely the demand would become greater, as more people would watch something they otherwise might fear looking at. Then more kids would become victims, especially I would say the ones who live in nations where there are child sex trafficing problems. Those countries already have a poor control over it, imagine if these trafficers had access to more money?
Also, if you are paying money to view a child being raped, how is that any different than standing there watching it happen right in front of your face?
Should we make it legal to pay to watch a child be raped/molested?

[Athena]

I love you guys, but sometimes, I'm convinced you don't read my posts. In fact, I say very blatantly, "Of course, I'm not saying that the viewing of child porn should not be a crime, necessarily. I understand that we have an interest in curbing child porn from the market end, by penalizing demand."

But, hey...You want to talk about the legality aspect? I'll talk about the legality aspect. I'll start off by stating my official stance: I do not think possession of child porn should be a jailable offense. I believe it should be met with harsh fines and community service, but we should save room in our jails for violent offenders.


No way! Child porn exists because there is a demand for it. If it was not illegal to view the porn, then surely the demand would become greater, as more people would watch something they otherwise might fear looking at. Then more kids would become victims, especially I would say the ones who live in nations where there are child sex trafficing problems. Those countries already have a poor control over it, imagine if these trafficers had access to more money?

People with an interest in child porn are sick. They are pedophiles. It's not like you or I or other, rational creatures sit around and think, "Hmmm. You know, I'd totally look at child porn if it were legal to." Most people have no interest in child porn, so I don't believe we can assume that the market would grow with its decriminalization. Amputee porn is perfectly legal. Do people watch it just because it's legal? Generally not. The market for it is very limited because normal people aren't into that sort of thing.

Also, if sentencing for manufacturing and distributing child porn was increased, and we focused the current recourses being spent on finding those who possess it on those who manufacture and distribute it, instead, who's to say that wouldn't balance out (or better) any increased market?


Also, if you are paying money to view a child being raped, how is that any different than standing there watching it happen right in front of your face?

The difference? Are you seriously asking that? The difference is clear: In the first instance, you are, essentially, an accomplice. Having the ability to prevent or stop such assault but, instead, choosing to facilitate it, makes you party to the crime. In the second instance, the crime has already occurred. You didn't order it to occur and you couldn't prevent it if you wanted to. Your possession of said imagery is inconsequential. It's the difference between being a physical witness to an assult in progress and watching a video of it on YouTube long after it happened.

Also, I'd like to note that not all child porn is active rape. Suggestive pictures of nude children qualifies. I have no idea what percentage is what, but it's like a DVD vs. Playboy. Both are considered porn.


Should we make it legal to pay to watch a child be raped/molested?

I don't think so, but I don't think we should be chasing it so rabidly, either. Had the NY Attorney General spent all those man hours and dollars he used up lobbying ISPs to drop Usenet access onhunting for manufacturers instead, might he have caught some legitimate bad guys? Perhaps, but we'll never know, because we're so busy searching for possession, the low-hanging fruit, that we may be missing the big picture entirely.

I mean, how many child porn "rings" do you hear of that only involve the possession and trade of images, but not the manufacturing of images? We ought to be rabidly hunting down the manufacturers...the ones actually victimizing!

[Nell]

Ok, I am sorry Athena. I did read that wrong. I had to reread the part you quoted like three times. Duh. I think that is punishment for my gloating yesterday!

But after you reemphasised your point I have to agree. And I am probably gonna get groaned.:heh:

[Athena]

Ok, I am sorry Athena. I did read that wrong. I had to reread the part you quoted like three times. Duh. I think that is punishment for my gloating yesterday!

Muahahahahaha! :p


But after you reemphasised your point I have to agree. And I am probably gonna get groaned.:heh:

Naw. I mean, I'm the one flirting with the idea of decriminalizing the possession of child porn. If I haven't been groaned yet, you're definitely in the clear.

Of course, the night's still young. We may both get groaned by morning. ;)

[Shadow]

about a 11 almost 12 yrs now.. ago my ex came to me, and said.. 'you have to see this..' it was about 3mins of video of a 5yr old getting it from 'daddy'. I watched in horror. I asked him where he got the video, he said he found it on one of the bbs's. I asked which one, he claimed he couldn't remember. I yelled at him to 'get rid of it!'. (to his credit, he made it go away. I don't know if he actually deleted it, or just hid it somewhere, where I'd never see it again) I was physically ill, after watching this. the memory of the video is permanently burned into my brain. All I could think about was.. that could be MY child.
It makes me ill to think that this is acceptable on any terms. Child pornography is vile. In child pornography, there is no such thing as victimless crime. The victims are the children who've had their innocence Stolen from them so some sleazeball can make a fast buck. Why are people so fascinated with something that's so reprehensible?

and before anyone asks.. YES I'm upset about this.

What is the difference between this and rape?


~ceisdsgil

[Athena]

about a 11 almost 12 yrs now.. ago my ex came to me, and said.. 'you have to see this..' it was about 3mins of video of a 5yr old getting it from 'daddy'. I watched in horror. I asked him where he got the video, he said he found it on one of the bbs's. I asked which one, he claimed he couldn't remember. I yelled at him to 'get rid of it!'. (to his credit, he made it go away. I don't know if he actually deleted it, or just hid it somewhere, where I'd never see it again) I was physically ill, after watching this. the memory of the video is permanently burned into my brain. All I could think about was.. that could be MY child.
It makes me ill to think that this is acceptable on any terms. Child pornography is vile. In child pornography, there is no such thing as victimless crime. The victims are the children who've had their innocence Stolen from them so some sleazeball can make a fast buck. Why are people so fascinated with something that's so reprehensible?

and before anyone asks.. YES I'm upset about this.

What is the difference between this and rape?


~ceisdsgil

It is vile, absolutely. However, once the images have been manufactured and distributed, there is no longer any victimization occuring, whether you watch it in horror, curiosity or amusement.

To say that simply watching it equates to doing it sets a dangerous precedent. Again, with the assault analogy - If you watch a video of someone getting their ass beat, is it the same as beating them yourself, or standing by while someone gets beat? I mean, you're watching someone get victimized, aren't you?

Of course it's not the same.

If you're talking about the creation of child porn, the physical act of forcing a child to do god knows what and filming or photographing it...there's no difference between that and rape. But, if you're talking about the simple possession of it, there's a WORLD of difference between that and rape.

[Shadow]

It is vile, absolutely. However, once the images have been manufactured and distributed, there is no longer any victimization occuring, whether you watch it in horror, curiosity or amusement.

To say that simply watching it equates to doing it sets a dangerous precedent. Again, with the assault analogy - If you watch a video of someone getting their ass beat, is it the same as beating them yourself, or standing by while someone gets beat? I mean, you're watching someone get victimized, aren't you?

Of course it's not the same.

If you're talking about the creation of child porn, the physical act of forcing a child to do god knows what and filming or photographing it...there's no difference between that and rape. But, if you're talking about the simple possession of it, there's a WORLD of difference between that and rape.

I was talking about the act it's self .. of creating child porn. But that brings another question.

What would be the difference between possessing child porn and possessing the knowledge of details (or even video footage) of a murder, but not reporting it?
For instance, say you know the creator of the porn, say.. they're someone upstanding in the community.. and you know about their child porn creations. you know about it, yet you say nothing. Aren't you just as guilty as the person committing the crime?

~ceisdsgil

[Countess Olenska]

I didn't read all the reply posts. Frankly I feel like shit today so boo boo on you.

I think that there is always going to be that one sick fucker who gets his ass caught surfing naked babies and is going to use the excuse that some spammer must have planted it there. I can even see some twisted fuck finding said program and using it himself in hopes of some legal loophole. I don't think that legalizing or not legalizing it is going to stop it. Population growth and denser living quarters mean more perverts in close proximity to your children. If some shmo is in the middle of some legal heat has such a trojan or known spam that would have caused kiddie porn to be on his computer, then sure grant an exception. (major run on there, sorry)

The problem isn't so much the laws but the old fart holy rollers that enforce them.

You aren't just as guilty as committing the crime unless you are supporting it. Viewing a crime isn't the same as committing one.

[Shadow]

I didn't read all the reply posts. Frankly I feel like shit today so boo boo on you.

I think that there is always going to be that one sick fucker who gets his ass caught surfing naked babies and is going to use the excuse that some spammer must have planted it there. I can even see some twisted fuck finding said program and using it himself in hopes of some legal loophole. I don't think that legalizing or not legalizing it is going to stop it. Population growth and denser living quarters mean more perverts in close proximity to your children. If some shmo is in the middle of some legal heat has such a trojan or known spam that would have caused kiddie porn to be on his computer, then sure grant an exception. (major run on there, sorry)

The problem isn't so much the laws but the old fart holy rollers that enforce them.

You aren't just as guilty as committing the crime unless you are supporting it. Viewing a crime isn't the same as committing one.

I hope you feel better soon.

I agree that viewing it, isn't the same as committing it, but if you have video footage in your possession of something you know is illegal, don't you think you should report it? whether it be child porn, murder, or a drug deal that went down..

~ceisdsgil

[Countess Olenska]

I hope you feel better soon.

I agree that viewing it, isn't the same as committing it, but if you have video footage in your possession of something you know is illegal, don't you think you should report it? whether it be child porn, murder, or a drug deal that went down..

~ceisdsgil

That's the problem. Should I report it and take a chance of being prosecuted for child porn? Can I live with the guilt of knowing a baby has been raped?

Normal people who aren't tweaking with the naked babies would all agree that they would want to report it.

[Shadow]

That's the problem. Should I report it and take a chance of being prosecuted for child porn? Can I live with the guilt of knowing a baby has been raped?

Normal people who aren't tweaking with the naked babies would all agree that they would want to report it.

if you're prosecuted for reporting it, there's something seriously wrong with our judicial system. :( Good message to send out to the residents of America. "narc on the perp and get a free ride to jail" and my family wonders why I feel the way I do about the USA.


~ceisdsgil

[SoUncool]

I read the article earlier today about the dude losing his job over the porn on his work laptop. Kudos to him for going the distance to prove his innocence. I've read all the posts and appreciate everyone's individual opinions. This is such a freakin' loser topic to even be talking about because child porn shouldn't exist IN THE FIRST PLACE. The first thing that came to me was the old marketing strategy of supply and demand. Take away the demand and the supply will run dry. That doesn't mean that innocent children won't continue to get molested by fuckwads, it just means that nobody will make money off their innocence and misery. As far as possessing it goes, and please help me out here cuz I'm clueless (thankfully) about the child porn process, but if they download the crap, do they pay for it? Do they get it for free? Or is it just shared via message boards and stuff amongst those pervs with likemindedness? SOMEONE's got to buy cuz somebody's making the profit right?? If it's just done similarly like this site, where someone beats someone else posting a hot topic, are they always looking for something someone hasn't seen yet so it ends up being just this horrible vicious circle?

[Countess Olenska]

You get mucho weird porn from newsgroups/websites or download programs which are free. It's like a club for whatever perversion you fancy. Chubby Chasers, big booties, feet, stomping...the list goes on and on. It's like a club for people with like interests that don't have to register to view the content.

[SoUncool]

You get mucho weird porn from newsgroups/websites or download programs which are free. It's like a club for whatever perversion you fancy. Chubby Chasers, big booties, feet, stomping...the list goes on and on. It's like a club for people with like interests that don't have to register to view the content.

Interests or perversions / fetishes? I've seen all that crap, but I've never seen child porn on anything I've looked at. YES, shut up, I've looked at porn!

[celtic friend]

I didn't read all the reply posts. Frankly I feel like shit today so boo boo on you.

I think that there is always going to be that one sick fucker who gets his ass caught surfing naked babies and is going to use the excuse that some spammer must have planted it there. I can even see some twisted fuck finding said program and using it himself in hopes of some legal loophole. I don't think that legalizing or not legalizing it is going to stop it. Population growth and denser living quarters mean more perverts in close proximity to your children. If some shmo is in the middle of some legal heat has such a trojan or known spam that would have caused kiddie porn to be on his computer, then sure grant an exception. (major run on there, sorry)

The problem isn't so much the laws but the old fart holy rollers that enforce them.

You aren't just as guilty as committing the crime unless you are supporting it. Viewing a crime isn't the same as committing one.
Mamma, you are supporting the crime of chid molestation by viewing child porn. If there was no demand and no profit, there would be no desire.
Also, Athena I did see where you said you understand the supply/demand aspect of it. I just also saw how you were kinda pushing for it to still be Ok to do so.
Yes, I agree get the people who put it out there, but also get the people watching.
I also do still say that more people/sickos would look at it if the threat of getting caught was not there.

[celtic friend]

That's the problem. Should I report it and take a chance of being prosecuted for child porn? Can I live with the guilt of knowing a baby has been raped?

Normal people who aren't tweaking with the naked babies would all agree that they would want to report it.
If you happened upon child porn and reported I doubt you would be prosecuted. Again, all of these outlandish scenarios never seem to happen to anyone I have ever heard of. It reminds me of everytime people complain about registering as sex offenders, they are always the fucking ones that aren't pedos, just the ones that dated a 16 year old when they were 18. I love it, everyone is always the exception.

[DA Devil's Advocate]

We go so far overboard we're in the middle of the Atlantic. And we talk about child porn like we're talking about heroin when we should be talking about it like we talk about drugs. Child porn runs the gammut from the truly disgusting, such as an adult having intercourse with a todler, to the mundane, such as a 17 year 364 day old boy mooning someone. There should be no repercutions for truly victimless child porn. If a 16 year old girl sends a picture of her boobs to her boyfriend that's not child porn in my opinion. She's not a victim, she's just stupid. Any idiot knows that if you send a nude picture to a boy the first thing he does is shows it to his friends. Likewise if a couple of teens video themselves having sex and upload it who is being harmed. If a kid likes to pose nude for a camera is that realy any worse than the kiddie pagents? Why do we draw a line and say this art is legal and this art is not because of the age of the model? Now if the child is forced, if they show any discomfort or pain then hang the bastard who took it and the ones who share it. I know this is like the old "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" definition of pornograhy but to continue wasting time and mony to find, punish, and monitor for life those people who meerly admire the beauty of a human and are no danger to a child is ridiculous. I say human because I have downloaded and deleted some pictures that were tastefull, touching, and even ocassionally erotic back in the days when newsgroups were more prominent than websites. If anyone out ther remembers or uses newsgroups then you know that you don't always know what the picture will be till you open it and people don't always post in the category something really belongs in. Some I would have kept if not for the age of the model. Not because they were sexual but because they were everything I admire in a photograph.

[Morbid]

I agree with Athena 100 percent. But it was bound to happen. NG's have enjoyed YEARS of obscurity, and I welcome the drop from the major ISP's. Just go get you an account with a NG provider...they are worth the money anyway. But the less NG's are talked about the better. For me, I have been using them for 12 years and will admit, they are my primary resource for movies, games and yes, porn. Also, as DA mentioned, it was entirely possible for you to download child porn without realizing it. Trust me.

But for those who equate looking at child porn as being the same as supporting it or even participating in it...how far do you go with that thought process. If you look at World's Wildest Police Chases Involving Animals Attacking Shocking Atrocities or any other variant thereof...are you also laying that template on that behavior? Does watching a video of something make you what you are watching? There is a thing called morbid curiosity. It has a lot to do with why this site even exists.

[CPL CHUD]

I think the main thing people are worried about is creating a bigger market for child pornography by being passive about the stuff that's already out there and the people that regularly pursue it. I think if someone accidently stumbles onto it it's one matter that's entirely exclusive from someone who pays for, or downloads it on a regular basis. Whatever may be considered habitual would be up to the court to decide.

[celtic friend]

I agree with Athena 100 percent. But it was bound to happen. NG's have enjoyed YEARS of obscurity, and I welcome the drop from the major ISP's. Just go get you an account with a NG provider...they are worth the money anyway. But the less NG's are talked about the better. For me, I have been using them for 12 years and will admit, they are my primary resource for movies, games and yes, porn. Also, as DA mentioned, it was entirely possible for you to download child porn without realizing it. Trust me.

But for those who equate looking at child porn as being the same as supporting it or even participating in it...how far do you go with that thought process. If you look at World's Wildest Police Chases Involving Animals Attacking Shocking Atrocities or any other variant thereof...are you also laying that template on that behavior? Does watching a video of something make you what you are watching? There is a thing called morbid curiosity. It has a lot to do with why this site even exists.
I am the one who mentioned how is it any different than standing there watching it. I still say if you are supporting child porn financially by purchasing it, you are the one giving the actual perps money to keep it going. That to me is encouraging it at the very least.
I am not talking about a 16 year old flashing her stuff, I am talking about a 5 year naked on a bed in poses, stuff like that. To me, there is also no room for morbid curiousity concerning child porn. I don't think anyone should want to just peep at a child being sexually abused for their own curiousity. That is sick to me.

[Morbid]

I don't think anyone should want to just peep at a child being sexually abused for their own curiousity. That is sick to me.

And some people feel the same way about true crime sites, or videos that show violence. The majority of child porn is not sold. It is simply traded. It is only supported by people who are into it. You want to fine people who collect it, I'm all for it as long as some better guidelines are used to distinguish child porn that includes a man porking an infant, over a 15-year-old girl sending pics of her tits to her boyfriend. As it stands right now, with most child porn laws, there is no difference. Jail (or death if it were up to me) should be reserved for the people in the former category.

[Athena]

That's a great point that's brought up, about the age of the "victim". The laws should be redefined, especially in light of convenient picture technology, that limits the definition of child pornography to victims who are prepubescent. Perhaps there is a different definition (and severity) if the victim is 14+, or perhaps there should be none at all.

Also, with every possession charge, we should have to prove intent...that the perp intended to own child pornography. Regarding the case of the guy losing his job and having charges filed against him, I'm quite confident that this is neither the first nor the last time someone will be strung up by something they didn't even know existed on their computer.

I still maintain that we should focus on manufacturing and distribution. The economic take (eradicate demand, dry up supply) only goes so far, as we will NEVER get rid of demand. I mean, currently, we're running a full time witch hunt, with law enforcement teams dedicated to nothing but possession of child porn, yet the market still thrives. How much farther do you want to take it?

[celtic friend]

And some people feel the same way about true crime sites, or videos that show violence. The majority of child porn is not sold. It is simply traded. It is only supported by people who are into it. You want to fine people who collect it, I'm all for it as long as some better guidelines are used to distinguish child porn that includes a man porking an infant, over a 15-year-old girl sending pics of her tits to her boyfriend. As it stands right now, with most child porn laws, there is no difference. Jail (or death if it were up to me) should be reserved for the people in the former category.
I agree that there should be differences in regards to each case. The exception proves the rule or something like that, right?

[Athena]

Bump for Lieman. I *think* my response to CF on the first page describes my thoughts on the market argument as it pertains to possession.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

That's a great point that's brought up, about the age of the "victim". The laws should be redefined, especially in light of convenient picture technology, that limits the definition of child pornography to victims who are prepubescent. Perhaps there is a different definition (and severity) if the victim is 14+, or perhaps there should be none at all.

Also, with every possession charge, we should have to prove intent...that the perp intended to own child pornography. Regarding the case of the guy losing his job and having charges filed against him, I'm quite confident that this is neither the first nor the last time someone will be strung up by something they didn't even know existed on their computer.

I still maintain that we should focus on manufacturing and distribution. The economic take (eradicate demand, dry up supply) only goes so far, as we will NEVER get rid of demand. I mean, currently, we're running a full time witch hunt, with law enforcement teams dedicated to nothing but possession of child porn, yet the market still thrives. How much farther do you want to take it?


Never saw this, thanks for the bump. I just read UP a bit, so Ill start from scratch in a minute or so.

But the market will always thrive. Its a sexual preference, or condition, even. We have to focus on all outlets of this, if we want to protect our kids....but the market will never wain, as long as people like to fuck, and pedophilia exists....

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Kiddie porn is horrible stuff. The very thought of its creation turns my stomach. I believe those found guilty of manufacturing the stuff should get life sentences, if not death. I could even make a solid case for intensely harsh sentencing for distributors. However, I believe our war against the viewers might be becoming a bit extreme.


To me, there is no extreme to punishing viewers of this. As long as there is a demand, and the viewers are causing it, the crimes of putting children through this will always be there. And what do you mean, you COULD EVEN MAKE A SOLID CASE for intensely harsh sentencing for distributors? I think they should get the death sentence as well. Distribution is part catalyst. Much of the time, the distributors are the ones who finance the theft of the children for these acts to take place as well.


Now, before I get tomatoes thrown at me, first consider that simply viewing kiddie porn is a victimless crime. This pornography has already been created; there's no undoing that.

THat's an excuse to keep it going. Its like saying, snuff films are ok because the person has already been killed, and theres no denying that, so lets just watch it. WATCHING IT is victimless. Thats horrible logic....


It's already been distributed; there's no undoing that. If we burn every set of eyes that viewed the stuff at the stake, it still doesn't undo the damage done to the victim.

Not every set of eyes, because that shit pops up on internet sometimes, but yes, we burn every set of eyes that intentionally own it, and watch it. That CURBS your so-called VICTIM part of your crime.


We lump those who view child porn into the same group as child molesters, but there's a distinct difference - Child molestors are actively victimizing. Child porn viewers are not, and we can't even say with the slightest bit of confidence that these people will eventually graduate to molestation.

Jesus Christ, are you fucking kidding me, Athena? THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF CONFIDENCE!!??


Of course, I'm not saying that the viewing of child porn should not be a crime, necessarily. I understand that we have an interest in curbing child porn from the market end, by penalizing demand. Still, there is a point at which that becomes counter-productive...and I worry that we may be reaching that point.

You're scaring me now. Shouldnt be a crime, necessarily? Youre straddling the fence here, dangerously close to saying owning child pornography should be legal.....which is it, A?


This article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html) describes the effort of the NY attorney general, who has successfully forced three major ISPs, Sprint, Verizon and Time Warner Cable, to drop or strictly limit their users' access to Usenet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet). Usenet is the home of a hundred thousand of, essentially, message boards (newsgroups) much like this one. But, because 88 of them - 88 out of 100,000 - were found to have images of child porn, the Attorney General pressured these ISPs to drop Usenet newsgroups and now calls for all ISPs to follow their lead. All this, even though...



So, in light of this, is dropping Usenet really necessary?

On the individual level, this man's life has been destroyed (http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?&articleid=1101074&format=&page=1&listingType=loc#articleFull) by false charges of child porn. Well, not entirely false - the porn WAS there, on his work lap-top, but completely unbeknownst to him. You see, it had been spammed onto his computer thanks to corrupted virus-protection software. As a result, the man lost his job, had charges filed against him, and his friends ran for the hills. He has endured unimaginable shaming and financial damage as the result of something that could have happened to anyone with a work lap-top.

Jesus. Youre going to take an incident like this, and turn it into something to curb protection for our children? Wow. No system, no one is perfect. ANd we're taking this guy's word that it was spammed....personally, Ive never heard of software loading up and popping on all kinds of kid pron, but who knows.


So, as you can see, I'm not at all saying we should turn a blind eye to child porn. In fact, I'm advocating quite the opposite - losing our heads over child porn viewing diverts resources away from the actual victims and could easily turn into our very own witchhunt.

Youre advocating turning away from crime. We can hunt both, and should hunt both. We don't know what resources go where. We dont know that criminal investigation units arent broken down into looking for both, with tactical units FOR both...."losing our heads" about this is a good thing, and should stay the course.

Quite frankly, those of you that thanked this post for the sake of agreeing, should be ashamed you've been duped by someone who wages war against any kind of law that benefits victim prevention........

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I agree with Athena 100 percent. But it was bound to happen. NG's have enjoyed YEARS of obscurity, and I welcome the drop from the major ISP's. Just go get you an account with a NG provider...they are worth the money anyway. But the less NG's are talked about the better. For me, I have been using them for 12 years and will admit, they are my primary resource for movies, games and yes, porn. Also, as DA mentioned, it was entirely possible for you to download child porn without realizing it. Trust me.

But for those who equate looking at child porn as being the same as supporting it or even participating in it...how far do you go with that thought process. If you look at World's Wildest Police Chases Involving Animals Attacking Shocking Atrocities or any other variant thereof...are you also laying that template on that behavior? Does watching a video of something make you what you are watching? There is a thing called morbid curiosity. It has a lot to do with why this site even exists.


NOT the same thing, bro. Not in the same ballpark. Having it pop up as spam, and checking it out for a second happens. Downloading a picture to see if that shit is real, and being shocked by it, and like you said, a general morbid curiousity is not the same thing.

Downloading multiple pictures, owning it, that is fucking criminal, SHOULD be criminal, and should be dealt with harshly.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

We go so far overboard we're in the middle of the Atlantic. And we talk about child porn like we're talking about heroin when we should be talking about it like we talk about drugs. Child porn runs the gammut from the truly disgusting, such as an adult having intercourse with a todler, to the mundane, such as a 17 year 364 day old boy mooning someone. There should be no repercutions for truly victimless child porn. If a 16 year old girl sends a picture of her boobs to her boyfriend that's not child porn in my opinion. She's not a victim, she's just stupid. Any idiot knows that if you send a nude picture to a boy the first thing he does is shows it to his friends. Likewise if a couple of teens video themselves having sex and upload it who is being harmed. If a kid likes to pose nude for a camera is that realy any worse than the kiddie pagents? Why do we draw a line and say this art is legal and this art is not because of the age of the model? Now if the child is forced, if they show any discomfort or pain then hang the bastard who took it and the ones who share it. I know this is like the old "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" definition of pornograhy but to continue wasting time and mony to find, punish, and monitor for life those people who meerly admire the beauty of a human and are no danger to a child is ridiculous. I say human because I have downloaded and deleted some pictures that were tastefull, touching, and even ocassionally erotic back in the days when newsgroups were more prominent than websites. If anyone out ther remembers or uses newsgroups then you know that you don't always know what the picture will be till you open it and people don't always post in the category something really belongs in. Some I would have kept if not for the age of the model. Not because they were sexual but because they were everything I admire in a photograph.



OK, I see where you and Morbid both are talking about the 14+ of kids who are sexually promiscuous and things of that nature....Im all for defining child porn better. But when you write sentences like "child porn that is truly victimless"....if it's CHILD PORN, there is ALWAYS a victim. Children who are told nude modeling is art, are being lied to. Theyre too young to understand those things, and are being manipulated for the purpose of distribution to pedophiles, and quite frankly, to insinuate otherwise is pretty absurd. I've never seen an instance of nude children being passed off as art.

Admiring the beauty of humans, children involved, is fine. A naked mother wrapped in the arms of a naked toddler is clearly different than a toddler spreading her legs with great lighting and a gorgeous backdrop.

Of course we adhere to obvious differences. No one is suggesting that we crucify anyone who has a picture with a child who HAPPENS to be naked.....I'm talking about obvious child pornography here......

[Athena]

I've never seen an instance of nude children being passed off as art.

I was with you up until this point, when you appear to misspeak. You continue on to describe an example of nekkid babies in art. If you've never seen it...?

There SHOULD be a clear difference between child porn and simply nude pics/art, but there isn't, always. See the link I posted about the dude whose house was raided because nude pics of children (presumably his because charges were dropped, but the article doesn't seem to state clearly).

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I was with you up until this point, when you appear to misspeak. You continue on to describe an example of nekkid babies in art. If you've never seen it...?

There SHOULD be a clear difference between child porn and simply nude pics/art, but there isn't, always. See the link I posted about the dude whose house was raided because nude pics of children (presumably his because charges were dropped, but the article doesn't seem to state clearly).


No, I did not misspeak, you didn't understand. :)

No, I said nude children, as opposed to a naked baby in a mother's embrace. Toddlers being pretty much babies, as far as I know anyway (know Im wondering what the true def of a toddler is, dammit), but that's natural. A naked child is not. THat being the difference. She said "if a child is being forced", as if there are pictures of nude children who do this as a perfectly normal form of modeling.....and were you really with me? I pretty much disagreed with almost everything you said. ;)