The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Smile29: Big Brother is watching you Google

13

Posts

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Can we just define it as a psychological disorder where one is unable to get sexual satisfaction unless the stimulation occurs with the presence of a symbol of a person of age < x?

    Where x can be whatever people want it to be. 15 is probably good for what most people are thinking when they think pedophile. 12 is good for what everyone else is thinking.

    Shivahn on
  • wfowfo Registered User
    edited June 2010
    A mental illness is just a pattern of behaviors which deviates significantly from the norm and seriously affects a person's ability to function in society. It's a function of behavior and culture. This is why being gay was a mental disease but isn't anymore (behavior didn't change, culture did). So yes, a pattern of behavior that involves having sex with/looking at porn of people under 18 is a mental illness in our society where 18+ is not.

    wfo on
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The definition for mental illness is sort of fucked up, simply because the same thing can be illness in one context and not another, which is why I don't generally like the term unless it's something that screws with day to day functionality.

    Shivahn on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I dunno, it seems to me to be just another deviant sexuality...a rather unfortunate one for a person to have until we get virtual reality or some shit, but still. As long as a person isn't committing rape I don't see how their sexual preferences are anyone's business, no matter what they are.

    You aren't going to 'cure' pedophilia any more than you're going to 'cure' homosexuality. The goal should be to reduce harm, not try to force people into an arbitrary definition of normal.

    Kamar on
  • SolventSolvent Econ-artist ኢትዮጵያRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    To just throw out a few random things from the Australian context, because it is relevant to the OP:
    I think that we have some law on the books that creates an offence of 'using a carriage service to access child pornography'. So if you click a link, there's CP there, you're a criminal. So it's not the 'seeing it' that's a violation, it's using a carriage service to access it... Kind of like if you order some CP through the mail. Then I think there's also a crime of possession, so if you save files and store them then you're guilty of that second offense.

    Fun fact: in Australia, depictions of child abuse (which is a broader term that contains the subset that is CP) are illegal whether or not a child was actually abused. What constitutes a depiction is decided by some people who have a record of bad decisions. So things like cartoon or animated pictures can be child abuse material. Also, if the person in the picture looks like they might be below 18, it can be classed as child abuse material (this is relevant because an American-published magazine has had issues banned here, despite being a highly-circulated publication of a largish organisation, which can provide documentation of the age of all its models).


    Tracking every single person's digital footprints (in the EU case) is a pretty huge task. Surely they can use the knowledge of the various highly-specialised police units investigating these things to design a system that only flags people usng particular search terms. Not that there'd be that many using Google to look for their next fap-stack, but for those that do, you'd think the police would have a fairly good idea of what parameters they use.

    Solvent on
    I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
  • WMain00WMain00 Registered User
    edited June 2010
    You would think the EU would have something better to do with there time than come up with slapstick draconian plans for regulation and control. I don't know, something along the line of fixing the economic problems, or giving us all puppies.

    :|

    WMain00 on
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    So It Goes wrote: »
    The sharing and copying and possessing of child porn is also considered a revictimization of the original victim by many people.


    Making possession illegal is supposed to help discourage production, which necessarily involves child abuse. This is why the SCOTUS has said that virtual child porn or drawings are free speech and not illegal - no child was harmed in the making of those.

    The problem arises when something like the internet exists and makes things a lot easier to share as well as a lot easier to stumble across. And also the fact that technology has advanced to the point that minor children can disseminate pictures of themselves, that they took by themselves, which is technically child porn but not a result of child abuse.

    Even if no child is harmed, allowing virtual child porn doesn't seem okay to me.

    Why?

    Because pedophilia is a mental illness, and I don't think we should be encouraging it.

    Not making virtual child porn possession criminal =/= encouraging pedophilia. It's about free speech and the reasoning behind making possession illegal.

    So It Goes on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Also the fact that the vast majority, in fact almost all of it is generated by parents abusing their own children.

    Most kids kidnapped for abuse are usually killed, not filmed.

    Of course, all politicians and lawmakers and so on dance around this fact, and pretend that all of it comes from like, kidnapped kids and so on.

    FyreWulff on
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Of course, all politicians and lawmakers and so on dance around this fact, and pretend that all of it comes from like, kidnapped kids and so on.

    Yeah, but let's be honest - the debate about child pornography has always been ridiculously hypocritical and stupid.

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Solvent wrote: »
    Fun fact: in Australia, depictions of child abuse (which is a broader term that contains the subset that is CP) are illegal whether or not a child was actually abused. What constitutes a depiction is decided by some people who have a record of bad decisions. So things like cartoon or animated pictures can be child abuse material. Also, if the person in the picture looks like they might be below 18, it can be classed as child abuse material (this is relevant because an American-published magazine has had issues banned here, despite being a highly-circulated publication of a largish organisation, which can provide documentation of the age of all its models).

    This has lead to hilariously awful things, like attempting (succeeding?) to ban porn with women with small breasts, since they look younger.

    Shivahn on
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Australia is not a model anyone should follow

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2010
    WMain00 wrote: »
    You would think the EU would have something better to do with there time than come up with slapstick draconian plans for regulation and control. I don't know, something along the line of fixing the economic problems, or giving us all puppies.

    :|

    They tried doing something useful. It was called Copenhagen, and it failed. So now they're back to doing incredibly stupid shit.

    I don't really see how it's a problem if a person wants to download and pleasure himself to digitized cp that harmed absolutely no children in the process. If it isn't harming anyone, then it shouldn't be illegal. People who want to use the law to enforce morality can go fuck themselves.

    Also, "feeling uneasy" about something is a bullshit reason for any law. People used to "feel uneasy" about gay people, women waiting until after age 15 to marry, Irish people, and all other kinds of ridiculous bullshit. This isn't quite the same, primarily because cp has the very real possibility of horrific sexual abuse attached, but if a cache can be proven to be completely detached from the abuse of actual children, then whatever someone wants to do by themselves in the privacy of their own home is none of our god damn business.

    Picardathon on
  • EchoEcho Where da waaagh at? Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    Also, "feeling uneasy" about something is a bullshit reason for any law.

    We have separation of church and state (well, on paper at least). Why the shit don't we have separation of morals and state? I don't want anyone to base legislation on whether something is or isn't moral.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    Also, "feeling uneasy" about something is a bullshit reason for any law.

    We have separation of church and state (well, on paper at least). Why the shit don't we have separation of morals and state? I don't want anyone to base legislation on whether something is or isn't moral.

    Don't we do that already?

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    It depends on your point of view. Some people think that laws are designed to bring about the most moral good. Some people think they are designed to bring about the best functioning state.

    Shivahn on
  • EchoEcho Where da waaagh at? Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    So, my sources tell me that the number of signatures is slowly shrinking, as more and more MEPs withdraw their signatures.

    This is apparently the first time in the history of the parliament that this happens.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • 815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    So, my sources tell me that the number of signatures is slowly shrinking, as more and more MEPs withdraw their signatures.

    This is apparently the first time in the history of the parliament that this happens.
    I hope this turns out to be the case, none of us really need this bullshit.

    815165 on
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited June 2010
    How does this work with someone appropriating an unsecured wireless network? Because the cops busting in and someone being accuised of accessing child porn is something that won't go away even if proven innocent.

    I'm unsure but I had the police visit once and check my computer's IP address because someone had been accessing 'very illegal content' through someone elses router.

    So I guess that's how it works, they go to your house, check your stuff, realise it's not you and check your neighbours.

    Sipex on
    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    What we need to do is seal the name of the accused and the accuser in those cases (actually, you could say all cases). This way the fucked up "accused but acquitted but we'll assume they were doing it" bullshit goes away, and victims are more likely to come forward since their name won't be plastered everywhere.

    I believe certain countries like Germany already have a law that requires people's names to be John Doe'd after serving a sentence.

    FyreWulff on
  • 815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    How does this work with someone appropriating an unsecured wireless network? Because the cops busting in and someone being accuised of accessing child porn is something that won't go away even if proven innocent.

    I'm unsure but I had the police visit once and check my computer's IP address because someone had been accessing 'very illegal content' through someone elses router.

    So I guess that's how it works, they go to your house, check your stuff, realise it's not you and check your neighbours.
    Good thing they didn't find the dungeon in your basement, no smoke without fire, man. :^:

    815165 on
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    How does this work with someone appropriating an unsecured wireless network? Because the cops busting in and someone being accuised of accessing child porn is something that won't go away even if proven innocent.

    I'm unsure but I had the police visit once and check my computer's IP address because someone had been accessing 'very illegal content' through someone elses router.

    So I guess that's how it works, they go to your house, check your stuff, realise it's not you and check your neighbours.
    Good thing they didn't find the dungeon in your basement, no smoke without fire, man. :^:

    Yeah, I totally panicked until I realised they just wanted to see my computer.

    After that all I had to do was keep the captives gagged until the nice policeman was done validating my IP.

    Sipex on
    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The laws relating to child porn are stupid, mandatory minimums, sex offender registries are also stupid. Not having a "within X age of" exemption being the worst part.

    If a pedo wants to buy loli from japan and wank in his basement, that's disgusting but it doesn't hurt anyone's kids. If someone is 19 and dating a 17 year old, that person is not a pedophile. Peeing outside a bar is not sexually assaulting anyone, it's being drunk.

    The hot button around sex offenders is particularly annoying because it's really hard to debate as a politician and not like, never get voted for again ever.

    override367 on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Sex offender registries are unconstitutional.

    Unfortunately, since everything thinks with emotions instead of rationality, we'll never see them taken down because "omg that politician wants them to be able to hide!"

    When you know, the registry forces them underground in the first place

    FyreWulff on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    815165 wrote: »
    When it comes to viewing in imagine online, isn't the viewing also technically possession?

    Well I suppose if the police bust into your house and see you looking at it, but if there's no trace of it on your PC, how do you figure they'd know if you happened to see any?
    If they assume that all viewing is also possession, which wouldn't surprise me considering how eager they are to monitor any sexual activity they consider deviant, if they know someone viewed something that could also be proof of temporary possession, right?

    edit: Echo beat me to the punch, this is all scary shit yo

    edit2: What if someone had a non-sexual image of say the Olsen Twins in a folder a long with all their actual porn on their PC? Is that file now considered child porn because of the context in which it was viewed or does the actual content of the image need to be sexual?

    Wouldnt it be great to send politicians child porn so that when they open it think it's okay, they become possessors of child porn?

    mrt144 on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2010
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Sex offender registries are unconstitutional.

    Unfortunately, since everything thinks with emotions instead of rationality, we'll never see them taken down because "omg that politician wants them to be able to hide!"

    When you know, the registry forces them underground in the first place

    The zoning laws that prevent them from living within five miles of civilization do a better job of that then the sex offender registries.

    Because apparently the best way to protect children is to make sure that the people who have a history of preying on them be nigh untraceable.

    Picardathon on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Yes, the zoning laws are inherently tied into the registries though. Both should be removed.

    FyreWulff on
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    At least we don't castrate them. Hooray US?

    I wonder how much traction they would get in the legislature for cutting off the hands of thieves.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    At least we don't castrate them. Hooray US?

    I wonder how much traction they would get in the legislature for cutting off the hands of thieves.

    Bernie Madoff would be a good candidate.

    electricitylikesme on
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    There's something to be said for "Olde Timey Justice"

    GungHo on
    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    There's something to be said for "Olde Timey Justice"

    It makes people feel better but isn't effective.

    mrt144 on
  • EchoEcho Where da waaagh at? Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Yes, the zoning laws are inherently tied into the registries though. Both should be removed.

    Very few things make me rage as much as US sex offender legislation.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    There's something to be said for "Olde Timey Justice"

    It makes people feel better but isn't effective.

    I'm all about feeling better.

    GungHo on
    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Sex offender registries are unconstitutional.

    Unfortunately, since everything thinks with emotions instead of rationality, we'll never see them taken down because "omg that politician wants them to be able to hide!"

    When you know, the registry forces them underground in the first place

    The zoning laws that prevent them from living within five miles of civilization do a better job of that then the sex offender registries.

    Because apparently the best way to protect children is to make sure that the people who have a history of preying on them be nigh untraceable.

    Aren't zoning laws the domain of municipal jurisdictions? If so, I'm not entirely sure how one could effectively change it given such a decentralized system of implementation.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Like I said previously, the scariest thing to me (which would be a pretty big deal with search engines tracking your searches), is that you can be imprisoned for "attempting" to access child porn.

    So while people are debating "Well what if you saw a picture of it on accident but there was none on your computer"

    Man you don't even have to see a picture.

    You just have to follow one link, or possibly use one search term that is flagged for being related to child porn.

    That is scary to me.

    Nocturne on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Yes, the zoning laws are inherently tied into the registries though. Both should be removed.

    Very few things make me rage as much as US sex offender legislation.

    It's bullshit too. Recently, one of the sheriff unions got mad at the OPD's union or something. Anyway, they sent out a flyer to much of Omaha with a bunch of names and pictures of sex offenders that were "on the loose" supposedly that the police had "lost track" of. They could be RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR WINDOW.

    It caused a bit of a ruckus and the police passed a feelgood policy of "we'll check on sex registry guys when we're not answering calls".

    The stupid thing about this? The police already knew where all these guys were. But since it's like political kryptonite, any resistance to it would have given them more of a shitstorm :/

    FyreWulff on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    And besides the fact that restricting where you can live because of past crimes that you have served time for is unconstitutional, all it really ends up doing is pushing almost all of them into the homeless shelters. It's literally "out of sight, out of mind" for a lot of people :/

    And of course after they passed the initial law of restrictions of living near a school, they started adding more and more business and location types until there are literally cities that are impossible for them to live in, because all the zones overlap each other.

    So not only has the public done stupid shit, they've re-established exile as a legal structure again.

    Not only that but someone could kill a kid, get 20 years, and under the idiotic law, they could live right across the street from a school, while a guy that took a pic of him and his girlfriend when they were both 17 would be living under a bridge outside the city limits.

    FyreWulff on
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I'll just say this:

    Humans are the only animal that criticizes itself for being attracted to members of its species that have obviously gone through puberty and are capable of reproducing (IE: 15-16-17, etc).

    It's not 'unnatural' to be attracted to them from a physical standpoint as that's how nature was made to work. Of course, sex to humans is also nth times more complex than it is among other animals, for whatever reason.

    So basically I don't think it's 'strange' to think a 16 year old is attractive, though I do NOT think it's a good idea to try and go after them (unless you're around that age yourself).

    That being said, being attracted to those who haven't reached that level IS unnatural as it serves no purpose and if anything prevents you from procreating which is pretty much the basis of hormone driven sex.

    Magus` on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    We still need to change the laws where the incentive is to bring the kid back alive instead of killing them.

    There's a reason why when a kid disappears and is kidnapped, the police go by "we have X hours until they're dead" instead of "we have X hours until they're made to do child porn"

    FyreWulff on
  • EchoEcho Where da waaagh at? Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    Smile29 got 369 signatures and is now adopted. The Data Retention Directive will now be storing search engine queries as well, to "protect the children".

    When asked about more details about Smile29, the Italian MEP behind it proved with his answers that he has no idea what he is talking about, meaning he's quacking like a duck on orders from lobbyists.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    No draw down of signatures like previously hinted at? :(

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Sign In or Register to comment.