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?
Isn't a sensible pedophile just going to stop using google and go to playgrounds and elementary school plays if this passes? Or, you know, just don't use google and access child porn via the list of bookmarks the sicko has been using for years?
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.
Isn't a sensible pedophile just going to stop using google and go to playgrounds and elementary school plays if this passes? Or, you know, just don't use google and access child porn via the list of bookmarks the sicko has been using for years?
The sensible pedophiles already have thoroughly encrypted darknets. There's incredibly little of the hardcore CP actually on the web. That's why you read articles about a whole bunch of people getting busted at once - their darknet got infiltrated and busted.
I'm hoping at some point someone will get a legal precedent set that the incidental caching a web browser does of images does not count as possession.
That's exactly why they're lobbying for looking at it as illegal.
So if I print a picture of a naked child, break into the British Parliment, and show the image to the people in Parliment, then all of Parliment goes to jail for being pedophiles?
I'm hoping at some point someone will get a legal precedent set that the incidental caching a web browser does of images does not count as possession.
That's exactly why they're lobbying for looking at it as illegal.
So if I print a picture of a naked child, break into the British Parliment, and show the image to the people in Parliment, then all of Parliment goes to jail for being pedophiles?
I'm hoping at some point someone will get a legal precedent set that the incidental caching a web browser does of images does not count as possession.
That's exactly why they're lobbying for looking at it as illegal.
So if I print a picture of a naked child, break into the British Parliment, and show the image to the people in Parliment, then all of Parliment goes to jail for being pedophiles?
This is why it's either going to be a ridiculous law or one that just won't work because it'll be too hard to prove someone saw it in bad faith.
Don't forget the FBI has posted fake links to child porn and then raided the homes and arrested people who clicked on them.
At least one person was found guilty, not for possessing anything illegal, but for clicking on the link, which fell under an "attempt" to acquire child porn.
As a dude who does not search for child porn but has been tricked into clicking on all sorts of fucked up links in my time on the internet, this shit is scary.
Edit: I know this is about the EU, I'm just talking about the precident set here.
Don't forget the FBI has posted fake links to child porn and then raided the homes and arrested people who clicked on them.
At least one of the people was found guilty, not for possessing anything illegal, but for clicking on the link, which fell under an "attempt" to acquire child porn.
As a dude who does not search for child porn but has been tricked into clicking on all sorts of fucked up links in my time on the internet, this shit is scary.
Edit: I know this is about the EU, I'm just talking about the precident set here.
Well, I would think that it's possible the police made it really, really obvious - not like "Win 10,000 dollars instantly!" and then bam CP
Don't forget the FBI has posted fake links to child porn and then raided the homes and arrested people who clicked on them.
At least one of the people was found guilty, not for possessing anything illegal, but for clicking on the link, which fell under an "attempt" to acquire child porn.
As a dude who does not search for child porn but has been tricked into clicking on all sorts of fucked up links in my time on the internet, this shit is scary.
Edit: I know this is about the EU, I'm just talking about the precident set here.
Well, I would think that it's possible the police made it really, really obvious - not like "Win 10,000 dollars instantly!" and then bam CP
Yes, but you do realize that anyone on the internet can use hyperlinks, right?
I find it pretty weird that I could sleep with a sixteen year old and that's fine legally but if I saw a picture of her tits I'd be some kind of deviant.
Don't forget the FBI has posted fake links to child porn and then raided the homes and arrested people who clicked on them.
At least one of the people was found guilty, not for possessing anything illegal, but for clicking on the link, which fell under an "attempt" to acquire child porn.
As a dude who does not search for child porn but has been tricked into clicking on all sorts of fucked up links in my time on the internet, this shit is scary.
Edit: I know this is about the EU, I'm just talking about the precident set here.
Well, I would think that it's possible the police made it really, really obvious - not like "Win 10,000 dollars instantly!" and then bam CP
Yes, but you do realize that anyone on the internet can use hyperlinks, right?
True. It's kind of hard to set up a virtual sting, unless it was some kind of passworded site? I don't know.
Isn't the real problem with child pornography its being created, not its being viewed?
Sure is. And the fucking politicians never acknowledge this, they're always content to just throw a blanket over it and then proudly annouce that they Protected The Children.
Don't forget the FBI has posted fake links to child porn and then raided the homes and arrested people who clicked on them.
At least one of the people was found guilty, not for possessing anything illegal, but for clicking on the link, which fell under an "attempt" to acquire child porn.
As a dude who does not search for child porn but has been tricked into clicking on all sorts of fucked up links in my time on the internet, this shit is scary.
Edit: I know this is about the EU, I'm just talking about the precident set here.
Well, I would think that it's possible the police made it really, really obvious - not like "Win 10,000 dollars instantly!" and then bam CP
Yes, but you do realize that anyone on the internet can use hyperlinks, right?
True. It's kind of hard to set up a virtual sting, unless it was some kind of passworded site? I don't know.
Nope, you didn't have to type in "iamseriouslylookingforcp" or anything
Just your IP being logged as having accessed that link
Isn't the real problem with child pornography its being created, not its being viewed?
I think it's much more realistic to punish the offenders that view it than to set out to stop the production of it entirely. I think it's pretty much impossible to snuff it all out - 'course we should still be looking for those that produce it, but it's not a simple issue.
Isn't the real problem with child pornography its being created, not its being viewed?
The argument I've heard opposed to this view is a some kind of supply and demand bullshit.
So if the pedophile making the child porn does not have a client base then the pedophile making the child porn will stop making it, because the pedophile is just making it to share?
Here's a movie created as satire against another godawfully stupid attempt to censor the internet by throwing a blanket over web sites, instead of actually trying to shut them down and go after the site operators. I love it.
Isn't the real problem with child pornography its being created, not its being viewed?
I think it's much more realistic to punish the offenders that view it than to set out to stop the production of it entirely. I think it's pretty much impossible to snuff it all out - 'course we should still be looking for those that produce it, but it's not a simple issue.
If we stopped making children it would be impossible to make child pornography.
Isn't the real problem with child pornography its being created, not its being viewed?
I think it's much more realistic to punish the offenders that view it than to set out to stop the production of it entirely. I think it's pretty much impossible to snuff it all out - 'course we should still be looking for those that produce it, but it's not a simple issue.
If we stopped making children it would be impossible to make child pornography.
Isn't the real problem with child pornography its being created, not its being viewed?
I think it's much more realistic to punish the offenders that view it than to set out to stop the production of it entirely. I think it's pretty much impossible to snuff it all out - 'course we should still be looking for those that produce it, but it's not a simple issue.
If we stopped making children it would be impossible to make child pornography.
Fuck, this man is the solution.
Homosexuality would solve the problem, you're right, fucking that man is the solution.
edit: Echo, sir, you are brilliant. That video killed me on the first line, "Everywhere you look there are websites full of child pornography."
Lock that bitch up, she just fessed. Also, everywhere?
815165 on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Isn't the real problem with child pornography its being created, not its being viewed?
The argument I've heard opposed to this view is a some kind of supply and demand bullshit.
So if the pedophile making the child porn does not have a client base then the pedophile making the child porn will stop making it, because the pedophile is just making it to share?
That is a pretty stupid argument.
Just try to comprehend the arguments against lolicon. They're like child porn arguments times stupidity.
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.
Isn't the real problem with child pornography its being created, not its being viewed?
Sure is. And the fucking politicians never acknowledge this, they're always content to just throw a blanket over it and then proudly annouce that they Protected The Children.
Which is why we must Filter The Internet in order to block people from accessing child pornography!
(Can you spot the error in this idea? The Australian government can't.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
So is murdering everyone on a Mississipi riverboat to protect my identity as a contract killer.
Because pedophilia is a mental illness, and I don't think we should be encouraging it.
I really don't think that something which only exists as a result of an arbitrarily dictated line can count as a "mental illness".
Attraction to persons 18 years and older, healthy.
Attraction to persons younger than 18? Mental illness.
yeah, that's not how "illness" works.
Mostly because if we ever arbitrarily changed the arbitrary line from, say, 18 to 15? Well, shit, now a group of people who previously had a mental illness for wanting to fuck 16 year olds are now fine and dandy.
Because pedophilia is a mental illness, and I don't think we should be encouraging it.
I really don't think that something which only exists as a result of an arbitrarily dictated line can count as a "mental illness".
Attraction to persons 18 years and older, healthy.
Attraction to persons younger than 18? Mental illness.
yeah, that's not how "illness" works.
Mostly because if we ever arbitrarily changed the arbitrary line from, say, 18 to 15? Well, shit, now a group of people who previously had a mental illness for wanting to fuck 16 year olds are now fine and dandy.
yeah, no.
How we define minor is not my point. Being attracted to a sexually undeveloped child is generally considered an illness. Sure, you hit that point where you have to ask, "where do we draw the line?" and 18 may not be the right age, but I honestly can't imagine defending CP for any reason.
Because pedophilia is a mental illness, and I don't think we should be encouraging it.
I really don't think that something which only exists as a result of an arbitrarily dictated line can count as a "mental illness".
Attraction to persons 18 years and older, healthy.
Attraction to persons younger than 18? Mental illness.
yeah, that's not how "illness" works.
Mostly because if we ever arbitrarily changed the arbitrary line from, say, 18 to 15? Well, shit, now a group of people who previously had a mental illness for wanting to fuck 16 year olds are now fine and dandy.
yeah, no.
Plus whether or not you have a mental illness shouldn't depend on what state/country you live in.
Because pedophilia is a mental illness, and I don't think we should be encouraging it.
I really don't think that something which only exists as a result of an arbitrarily dictated line can count as a "mental illness".
Attraction to persons 18 years and older, healthy.
Attraction to persons younger than 18? Mental illness.
yeah, that's not how "illness" works.
Mostly because if we ever arbitrarily changed the arbitrary line from, say, 18 to 15? Well, shit, now a group of people who previously had a mental illness for wanting to fuck 16 year olds are now fine and dandy.
yeah, no.
How we define minor is not my point. Being attracted to a sexually undeveloped child is generally considered an illness. Sure, you hit that point where you have to ask, "where do we draw the line?" and 18 may not be the right age, but I honestly can't imagine defending CP for any reason.
I'm not defending child pornography. I am saying that makes no sense to call an attractions to persons younger than an arbitrarily decided line "mental illness".
Acting on that attraction can be as illegal as you want it to be; but it is not a mental illness, any more than it would be a mental illness for a Buddhist to eat beef.
_J_ on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited June 2010
Not to mention, uh, the fact that you can't "discourage" a mental illness out of existence.
I mean, that's basically the opposite of true.
Shivahn on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
And "Encouraging a mental illness" is not grounds for making anything illegal regardless
Because pedophilia is a mental illness, and I don't think we should be encouraging it.
I really don't think that something which only exists as a result of an arbitrarily dictated line can count as a "mental illness".
Attraction to persons 18 years and older, healthy.
Attraction to persons younger than 18? Mental illness.
yeah, that's not how "illness" works.
Mostly because if we ever arbitrarily changed the arbitrary line from, say, 18 to 15? Well, shit, now a group of people who previously had a mental illness for wanting to fuck 16 year olds are now fine and dandy.
yeah, no.
How we define minor is not my point. Being attracted to a sexually undeveloped child is generally considered an illness. Sure, you hit that point where you have to ask, "where do we draw the line?" and 18 may not be the right age, but I honestly can't imagine defending CP for any reason.
I'm not defending child pornography. I am saying that makes no sense to call an attractions to persons younger than an arbitrarily decided line "mental illness".
Acting on that attraction can be as illegal as you want it to be; but it is not a mental illness, any more than it would be a mental illness for a Buddhist to eat beef.
You're defining pedophilia as "anyone under the legal age limit"
Because pedophilia is a mental illness, and I don't think we should be encouraging it.
I really don't think that something which only exists as a result of an arbitrarily dictated line can count as a "mental illness".
Attraction to persons 18 years and older, healthy.
Attraction to persons younger than 18? Mental illness.
yeah, that's not how "illness" works.
Mostly because if we ever arbitrarily changed the arbitrary line from, say, 18 to 15? Well, shit, now a group of people who previously had a mental illness for wanting to fuck 16 year olds are now fine and dandy.
yeah, no.
How we define minor is not my point. Being attracted to a sexually undeveloped child is generally considered an illness. Sure, you hit that point where you have to ask, "where do we draw the line?" and 18 may not be the right age, but I honestly can't imagine defending CP for any reason.
I'm not defending child pornography. I am saying that makes no sense to call an attractions to persons younger than an arbitrarily decided line "mental illness".
Acting on that attraction can be as illegal as you want it to be; but it is not a mental illness, any more than it would be a mental illness for a Buddhist to eat beef.
You're defining pedophilia as "anyone under the legal age limit"
Posts
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?
The sensible pedophiles already have thoroughly encrypted darknets. There's incredibly little of the hardcore CP actually on the web. That's why you read articles about a whole bunch of people getting busted at once - their darknet got infiltrated and busted.
So if I print a picture of a naked child, break into the British Parliment, and show the image to the people in Parliment, then all of Parliment goes to jail for being pedophiles?
10 second rule applies. Like dropped food.
This is why it's either going to be a ridiculous law or one that just won't work because it'll be too hard to prove someone saw it in bad faith.
At least one person was found guilty, not for possessing anything illegal, but for clicking on the link, which fell under an "attempt" to acquire child porn.
As a dude who does not search for child porn but has been tricked into clicking on all sorts of fucked up links in my time on the internet, this shit is scary.
Edit: I know this is about the EU, I'm just talking about the precident set here.
Well, I would think that it's possible the police made it really, really obvious - not like "Win 10,000 dollars instantly!" and then bam CP
Yes, but you do realize that anyone on the internet can use hyperlinks, right?
True. It's kind of hard to set up a virtual sting, unless it was some kind of passworded site? I don't know.
I think they see it as if they make viewing it super hazardous then there will be less supply.
Sure is. And the fucking politicians never acknowledge this, they're always content to just throw a blanket over it and then proudly annouce that they Protected The Children.
Nope, you didn't have to type in "iamseriouslylookingforcp" or anything
Just your IP being logged as having accessed that link
I think it's much more realistic to punish the offenders that view it than to set out to stop the production of it entirely. I think it's pretty much impossible to snuff it all out - 'course we should still be looking for those that produce it, but it's not a simple issue.
So if the pedophile making the child porn does not have a client base then the pedophile making the child porn will stop making it, because the pedophile is just making it to share?
That is a pretty stupid argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmcupFx3FQ
If we stopped making children it would be impossible to make child pornography.
Fuck, this man is the solution.
edit: Echo, sir, you are brilliant. That video killed me on the first line, "Everywhere you look there are websites full of child pornography."
Lock that bitch up, she just fessed. Also, everywhere?
It is total shit and why I'm still EU-skeptic
Just try to comprehend the arguments against lolicon. They're like child porn arguments times stupidity.
They are stupidity² is what I'm saying.
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.
Which is why we must Filter The Internet in order to block people from accessing child pornography!
(Can you spot the error in this idea? The Australian government can't.)
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.
So is murdering everyone on a Mississipi riverboat to protect my identity as a contract killer.
I really don't think that something which only exists as a result of an arbitrarily dictated line can count as a "mental illness".
Attraction to persons 18 years and older, healthy.
Attraction to persons younger than 18? Mental illness.
yeah, that's not how "illness" works.
Mostly because if we ever arbitrarily changed the arbitrary line from, say, 18 to 15? Well, shit, now a group of people who previously had a mental illness for wanting to fuck 16 year olds are now fine and dandy.
yeah, no.
How we define minor is not my point. Being attracted to a sexually undeveloped child is generally considered an illness. Sure, you hit that point where you have to ask, "where do we draw the line?" and 18 may not be the right age, but I honestly can't imagine defending CP for any reason.
Plus whether or not you have a mental illness shouldn't depend on what state/country you live in.
I'm not defending child pornography. I am saying that makes no sense to call an attractions to persons younger than an arbitrarily decided line "mental illness".
Acting on that attraction can be as illegal as you want it to be; but it is not a mental illness, any more than it would be a mental illness for a Buddhist to eat beef.
I mean, that's basically the opposite of true.
You're defining pedophilia as "anyone under the legal age limit"
I'm not.
It's still a pretty slippery definition.