Viewing Child Porn now Legal in New York

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

RaikuFA:
I worry about CP on my comp. I worry that if I send it into someone who will fix it, they'll plant CP into my computer then call the cops.

Or my computer gets hacked and its planted into my computer.

Sadly you're right to worry about that. Seriously, dude is a sex offender now and forever because of a fucking virus. What kinda shit is that?

captcha: oh, lord. Indeed.

evilneko:

RaikuFA:
I worry about CP on my comp. I worry that if I send it into someone who will fix it, they'll plant CP into my computer then call the cops.

Or my computer gets hacked and its planted into my computer.

Sadly you're right to worry about that. Seriously, dude is a sex offender now and forever because of a fucking virus. What kinda shit is that?

captcha: oh, lord. Indeed.

It says they had no firewall up. I always have a firewall up. So I might be ok...

RaikuFA:

evilneko:

RaikuFA:
I worry about CP on my comp. I worry that if I send it into someone who will fix it, they'll plant CP into my computer then call the cops.

Or my computer gets hacked and its planted into my computer.

Sadly you're right to worry about that. Seriously, dude is a sex offender now and forever because of a fucking virus. What kinda shit is that?

captcha: oh, lord. Indeed.

It says they had no firewall up. I always have a firewall up. So I might be ok...

Of course, having a firewall is only part of securing your computer. A firewall doesn't do much to prevent infection, and it's possible for a virus to actually disable it, so it might not even do anything. Good antivirus protection is a must, preferably in the form of an executable whitelisting product such as Faronics AntiExecute.

Regnes:

BloatedGuppy:

When I think of child pornography, I think of films/pictures where a child was actually abused to create them, not hand-drawn art or stories or adult actors playing a role. Yes, you've seen people fake being murdered in action films, but it's unlikely you've watched actual snuff films.

There are websites for such things, and they are legal. I have seen an actual living person have his head cut off with a chainsaw for real.

Which I don't suggest, it turns out your head is like...SUPER important.

Probably right up there with kidneys in terms of things you don't want removed with a chainsaw, or at all really.

Guess that means the Law and Order SVU writers are gonna need to come up with some new material then :P

BloatedGuppy:

Esotera:
This ruling is relatively sensible, as otherwise people who accidentally click http://website-hosting-cp.com could be prosecuted for their actions, despite not actively wanting to download it.

There needs to be legislation about viewing CP hundreds of times with relative frequency, but I think this is the right decision as it doesn't create bad legal precedents.

Yeah it's the "accidentally viewing it for several hours every day" element of this ruling that seems a little questionable. Obviously there needs to be protection for dullards who blithely click into mysterious links, but I kind of assumed something like that was already in place. This seems...more encompassing.

Not that I'm a lawyer, or fully understand the legal implications involved.

Seems like an easy way someone could set another person up. All you need is access to their computer with out them knowing.

I think the law is best left as is. Theres to many ways that could be abused if it's changed.

evilneko:

RaikuFA:

evilneko:

Sadly you're right to worry about that. Seriously, dude is a sex offender now and forever because of a fucking virus. What kinda shit is that?

captcha: oh, lord. Indeed.

It says they had no firewall up. I always have a firewall up. So I might be ok...

Of course, having a firewall is only part of securing your computer. A firewall doesn't do much to prevent infection, and it's possible for a virus to actually disable it, so it might not even do anything. Good antivirus protection is a must, preferably in the form of an executable whitelisting product such as Faronics AntiExecute.

I have Norton, it came with my internet provider. I'll take a look at Faronics though.

chadachada123:

RazadaMk2:

You are looking at images of child abuse. By all accounts, this makes you complicit in the abuse if you make no attempt to inform someone of the abuse being carried out. You are directly handing money over to people who commit acts of child abuse which means you most certainly should be judged to be a criminal. Finally, if the image you are looking at is an image of a sexual interaction with a child, rather than simply an image of said child nude, then you are looking at rape. By all accounts.

Someone who deliberately obtains images of rape or abuse is scum. There is no way that said image can be obtained without abuse coming to a child down the line.

Oh, Lookie, I just contradicted myself. This certainly is an interesting issue.

And whilst many people are pointing out that it is hard to browse the internet without coming across rather horrific things... Although I admit this is the case (Clicking on a NSFL issue on /r/wtf has left me with a memory that I cannot unsee.) there is a difference between that and coming across a hell of a lot of CP.

I think it really depends about... quantity.

Say, if you went through someones cache and browsing history and it turns out they viewed a single picture in which there was someone under the age of consent engaged in a sexual act or wearing absolutely nothing (Carefully avoiding the technically legal act of viewing a picture of an underage person as long as no sex organs are involved, despite many of said pictures being utterly questionable) then ignorance could be used as a defence.

But if it turned out there were dozens, hundreds, thousands of said images? I think it would be safe to say that they are not innocent of deliberately seeking out pictures of child abuse. Unless, naturally, these pictures came up following said person informing the police that the website they thought was safe was actually hosting pictures of child pornography, hidden among legal pictures...

Couple of issues with your statement:

1) How in the hell does viewing some images equate to "DIRECTLY HANDING money over to people who commit acts of child abuse"?

On an imageboard, the uploaders don't get any compensation. No money is exchanged. Your statement would only work on sites where the pedos are also in control of the domain.

2) Equating the viewing of a crime to enabling a crime is, I feel, incorrect. I've got a plethora of gore on my harddrive, including beheadings and the like, some of which are most-likely still unpunished. There's no obligation for me to show these to the police, since I got them online from a random imageboard and have not the slightest clue about what country the crime happened in, so why should I be legally held to hand evidence of crimes against children to the police?

Plus, this says nothing of the images that girls willingly make of themselves and post online, and the police that have arrested and charged the girls themselves for possession/distribution of child pornography, and which doesn't fit under your proposed criteria also.

Been browsing since I was 12. Posting just about anywhere. Including quite a few dodgy porn sites when I was much younger.

Twice I have come across CP. Twice.

Once in a misslabelled torrent. This was back in the days when Ares was still widely used. I felt genuinely sick. The other time? /b/

IF you have managed to view thousands of images, you WERE looking for them. And the sites that you would find them on are sites run by people to make money from your kink. Lets get away from this idea that you can keep accidentally coming across horrific pictures of child abuse, totally accidentally. If that regularly happens on your favourite message board? STOP. GOING. THERE.

As for your second statement? In my eyes I have already adequetly explained my view further down. If you do not like that adequet explanation? Meh.

I think viewing images of people being raped. People being beheaded. People being burned alive. Shit, any of it. Two Guys One Hammer, The whole fuckign lot of it. I think watching that shit makes you a bad person. The law aggrees with me on the whole distribution thing, but you know what?

There are sick fucks out there. And I am not happy with them going unpunished. I am sorry mate, but as you admit to downloading a fucktonne of gore, genuine honest to goodness "I am going to watch someone get murdered" gore, then you most CERTAINLY fall into the category of "Sick fucks" in my brain.

You and the next guy I quoted.

Matthew94:

RazadaMk2:

Ah, you see, this is a real problem.

You are looking at images of child abuse. By all accounts, this makes you complicit in the abuse if you make no attempt to inform someone of the abuse being carried out. You are directly handing money over to people who commit acts of child abuse which means you most certainly should be judged to be a criminal. Finally, if the image you are looking at is an image of a sexual interaction with a child, rather than simply an image of said child nude, then you are looking at rape. By all accounts.

Woah

1. If I saw a video of someone stealing does that make me complicit in their crime?

2. How the hell do you hand over cash? They make no money off it.

3. So what if you look at rape? I've seen people on the net be burned to death, it doesn't mean shit.

*sigh*

*double sigh*

1. Firstly, Gradients of crime. If you watch someone stealing and you do nothing about it, that is totally different to if you watch someone raping a small child and do nothing about it. But in both cases you are complicit. If you know your next door neighbours are beating the shit out of their kids but you, personally, do nothing about it, you are an asshole. Tis a pity the only country that ever applies the law in this way is France. And its a weird leftover from Nazi rule. But it makes sense.

So! In answer to your first question, yes. watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit to the committing of said crime.

2. Follow. The. Money. Human trafficking is worth hundreds of millions every year. Including the trade in children. But if that argument fails to grab your fancy, are you seriously living under the impression that there is no MONEY in CP? Last year when Anon blew the whistle on a pedo ring site it was not because people were just looking at pictures.

They were paying people to do things to children. As in "I will send you 200 dollars if you do the following to a child." they were getting other people to live out their own, personal fantasy's. That kind of shit happens.

Ignoring that there are sites that use the same model that legal porn sites use. Setting up direct payments to view content, payments going to a totally innocuous company.

I say again, Were you seriously living under the impression that there is no money in CP?

3. I don't know where you live. But Snuff? Not legal in the United Kingdom. I know its hardcore to say "I literally saw someone get exploded on the internet" or similar, but it doesnt hold weight with people who are even slightly sane. On some level I can look past it, it could have been an accident, the spectacle does intrigue people. But in my eyes deliberately finding videos of people dying, being maimed, being raped, anything like it, Makes you an asshole. Scum. Not someone I would want around me. Not someone I would want teaching kids.

So, In summary.

1. Not reporting a crime = Being complicit.
2. There is money in CP.
3. Yes. It does. See the answer to question 1. Also, it makes you an asshole. In my eyes, at least.

Read up and re-read the last part of the last guy I quoted. Cause yeah. It applies to you, "Matthew94"

Asuka Soryu:
[quote="RazadaMk2" post="18.374504.14515000*snip*

Well, that is my collection of shaky views on the matter.[/quote]

Oh my God...

Shouldn't have said anything.

Just saying, I was not saying YOU! I was saying "You" as in a universal "you" that applies to anyone who looks at CP, not YOU! as in YOU! the person reading this now (Unless YOU also fall into the above category, which I seriously doubt.)

*wanders away again*

Hm... I think it depends on the definition personally, while I'm not really.. into lolicon.. some people are, however, that could be considered child pornography here the UK, I think several sites are blocked because of it. Personally I think that's wrong, since no child was subject to it, and as such should be fine.

The problem comes when real children are involved, that's wrong no matter how you try and spin it, and possession should be illegal no matter what.

Matthew94:

Wolverine18:

Go back and read what I said. The key was SEPERATE things.

That's faaaaantastic. I said explain how they are.

You said P2P downloading is different from AND I QUOTE "continuing to view and retransmit the file".

How can I transit something if I only watched it?

Do I really need to explain english? Seperate means different.

That quote contains TWO things people can do to continue to propegate harm on the victim. Both are harmful. I never said that viewing is doing both, although your viewing it means someone is is retransmitting it.

Wolverine18:

But it doesn't really. They aren't alive to know people are still watching it. The rape victim is. I'd also argue the families of those who burned alive are harmed by what you did much as the rape survivor is and that I'd also ban you looking at that kind of sick crap unless there was an overriding reason (eg - you are a fire investigator).

They don't know, they suspect. And due to it being just a suspicion they cannot know volume and if they cannot know volume then the act of watching cannot affect them.

Unless they saw the video and saw actual view counts they cannot know how many people have watched it so they cannot be affected per view like you are saying.

While you are right that we can never be 100% certain it isn't still out there, making it illegal gives a layer of protection to it being seen and stops many people from viewing it. That gives some comfort. If it were legal, more people would see it, more openly, and you most certainly would know it was happening. You can't always eliminate harm so in general "harm reduction" is a strategy used in many areas, including the law.

Matthew94:

Wolverine18:

Matthew94:

So everyone with basic net skills is not a good citizen? Got it.

Anyone with information of any crime, especially crime against a child, who says "its not my problem and I won't report" it is not a good citizen.

Then everyone with basic net skills is now not a good citizen, including yourself.

If I find child porn, I report it to the police.

Matthew94:

funcooker11811:

Matthew94:

2 only applies if you ask the person for more which is a hell of a lot different from simply viewing it.

Right, right. Because when some youtube poster gets 10,000 views for their retarded vlog, their first instinct is to wait patiently for someone to politely request another. Viewing free content is the same as requesting it. The videos are trophies to them. To them, viewing their trophies is validation for their "achievements". Saying otherwise is just plain indefensible.

And the person who made it should be punished not the viewers.

People can be charged for encouraging someone to commit a crime too.

Regnes:
I have seen all manners of horrific things and I have viewed them willingly, yet if I turned myself in, they would turn me away, for I have committed no crime. If a man looks at some child pornography, is he a child abuser?

Ah this is interesting, yes.
There is a downright hysteria about this going on.

Whenever it is brought up, it is like a call to a contest of who can scoff the hardest, who can come up with the most gruesome punishment for those sick minded individuals that should be hanged by their entrails and whatnot as if anything that isn't just utter hate or even something hinting at acceptance means you yourself must be a child abuser because "how can you defend that?".

You must be evil.

You must be... a witch.

It's a modern witch hunt. That's what it is.
If the act of drawing it is being made illegal and I feel that if they could somehow look into peoples heads, they would illegalize thinking about it too (cause those 2 are actually pretty close together) then it is pretty clear that we are no longer dealing with this in any rational way whatsoever anymore.

I for once applaud at the decision that the act of looking at something is now no longer illegal.
It is unusually... sane. Yes.
Albeit it feels like applauding at a toddler for no longer shitting its pants but hey, babysteps.

Wolverine18:

Matthew94:

funcooker11811:

Right, right. Because when some youtube poster gets 10,000 views for their retarded vlog, their first instinct is to wait patiently for someone to politely request another. Viewing free content is the same as requesting it. The videos are trophies to them. To them, viewing their trophies is validation for their "achievements". Saying otherwise is just plain indefensible.

And the person who made it should be punished not the viewers.

People can be charged for encouraging someone to commit a crime too.

I agree but I don't think watchig = encouraging.

Wolverine18:

Matthew94:

Wolverine18:

Anyone with information of any crime, especially crime against a child, who says "its not my problem and I won't report" it is not a good citizen.

Then everyone with basic net skills is now not a good citizen, including yourself.

If I find child porn, I report it to the police.

That's good of you.

I'd bet few of those leads were ever followed up. With technologies like Tor it's very difficult for these people to be found.

SaneAmongInsane:

BloatedGuppy:

Esotera:
This ruling is relatively sensible, as otherwise people who accidentally click http://website-hosting-cp.com could be prosecuted for their actions, despite not actively wanting to download it.

There needs to be legislation about viewing CP hundreds of times with relative frequency, but I think this is the right decision as it doesn't create bad legal precedents.

Yeah it's the "accidentally viewing it for several hours every day" element of this ruling that seems a little questionable. Obviously there needs to be protection for dullards who blithely click into mysterious links, but I kind of assumed something like that was already in place. This seems...more encompassing.

Not that I'm a lawyer, or fully understand the legal implications involved.

Seems like an easy way someone could set another person up. All you need is access to their computer with out them knowing.

I think the law is best left as is. Theres to many ways that could be abused if it's changed.

It already is abused horribly. The only reason no one seems to give a damn is because its bein abused by police and prosecutors to put people away when their only crime was lookin at somethin on the internet. Hell, its abused to put sex offender tags on 17 year olds who text naked pictures of themselves to their partners.

Child pornography laws are so horribly fucked that any progress like this is good progress. Hopefully one day people will get their heads out of their collective asses and realize viewin CP is a victimless crime. If a person rapes a child, go after that person with the full extent of the law. If a person molests a child, same thing. The people who give money to people who molest and rape children? Throw the fuckin book at em. However if a person simply views an image file on the internet and doesn't give a dime to anyone for it, leave them the fuck alone.

RazadaMk2:

*sigh*

*double sigh*

1. Firstly, Gradients of crime. If you watch someone stealing and you do nothing about it, that is totally different to if you watch someone raping a small child and do nothing about it. But in both cases you are complicit. If you know your next door neighbours are beating the shit out of their kids but you, personally, do nothing about it, you are an asshole. Tis a pity the only country that ever applies the law in this way is France. And its a weird leftover from Nazi rule. But it makes sense.

So! In answer to your first question, yes. watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit to the committing of said crime.

2. Follow. The. Money. Human trafficking is worth hundreds of millions every year. Including the trade in children. But if that argument fails to grab your fancy, are you seriously living under the impression that there is no MONEY in CP? Last year when Anon blew the whistle on a pedo ring site it was not because people were just looking at pictures.

They were paying people to do things to children. As in "I will send you 200 dollars if you do the following to a child." they were getting other people to live out their own, personal fantasy's. That kind of shit happens.

Ignoring that there are sites that use the same model that legal porn sites use. Setting up direct payments to view content, payments going to a totally innocuous company.

I say again, Were you seriously living under the impression that there is no money in CP?

3. I don't know where you live. But Snuff? Not legal in the United Kingdom. I know its hardcore to say "I literally saw someone get exploded on the internet" or similar, but it doesnt hold weight with people who are even slightly sane. On some level I can look past it, it could have been an accident, the spectacle does intrigue people. But in my eyes deliberately finding videos of people dying, being maimed, being raped, anything like it, Makes you an asshole. Scum. Not someone I would want around me. Not someone I would want teaching kids.

So, In summary.

1. Not reporting a crime = Being complicit.
2. There is money in CP.
3. Yes. It does. See the answer to question 1. Also, it makes you an asshole. In my eyes, at least.

Read up and re-read the last part of the last guy I quoted. Cause yeah. It applies to you, "Matthew94"

1. I meant watching it in a video. It does nothing at all to aid the person, likewise watching CP doesn't hurt the person who was abused.

2. There is money in it, there is money in everything. But there is also ungodly amounts of free shit out there and if you watched it then you are helping no one so you aren't making the problem worse.

3. If they were illegal live leak wouldn't have half the shit it has now and many videos are easily found on youtube.

Hell there is a video of a guy setting himself on fire and jumping off a bridge, it's been there for months, clearly not illegal.

funcooker11811:

Matthew94:

They can take it as encouragement but it's not direct encouragement.

Seriously? "They can take it as encouragement"? How the hell else are they supposed to take it? Again, please explain that one to me, because i'm sure whatever justification you can use for it must be something incredible.

They can take it whatever way they want but I feel if the person doesn't sirectly say "I want more of this to be made" they shouldn't be charged with the crime of "encouragement" especially if no money is made off of it.

This law sounds reasonable enough to me. You want to catch the pedophiles, not some unlucky dude who accidentally clicked on the wrong link whilst exercising his god given right to trawl the internet for free lesbian porn to beat off to.

From what I read in the news generally pedophiles get busted with hundreds or thousands of images, so this law won't result in those people getting away with anything.

EDIT: And why the hell do they have so many images? Can someone explain this to me? "Kent's convictions on the other counts rested on other evidence, including a folder on his machine that stored about 13,000 saved images of girls whom investigators estimated to be 8 or 9 years old"
Why would you want 13,000 pictures of child porn? Hell, even 13,000 pictures of renaissance art or kittens would get tedious very quickly.

The law says it's legal to view but illegal to possess, that's all. The judges can't make up their own laws, they need to apply the current ones.

All this is is a cry to the legislators for better definitions of their child porn laws, nothing else.

As for the whole "encouragement" thing, people don't need much encouragement to make porn of any kind. There's tons of amateur stuff uploaded every day by consenting couples who don't profit one bit. Even if you were to say that people do encourage it by merely viewing it accidentally, that encouragement can't be shown to have any actual effect because humanity has been making porn without it since we were cavemen and the distinction between porn and child porn is a VERY modern one. Perspective solves so many things, eh.

So, New York legalizes watching child pornography, and North Carolina bans gay marriage?
image

Purtabo:
where someone can legally be put in prison for a crime without intent.

Manslaughter.

OT: a lot of these problems would be reduced if we just put convicted child abusers and rapists to death. Wouldn't solve the problem, but at least some justice is served and there's a few less sacks of crap making the shit in the first place.

Qitz:

It isn't made legal, as Gizmodo suggests, it's just not illegal to look at pics and such. It's only illegal if you're found to be in direct possession of it.

Kind of makes sense, watching it isn't as big of a problem as finding the people who actually make the stuff and cause direct damage to the children doing it. Can see it being used as a way to help persuade people to tell where they say said content.

Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Although I understand what your saying, it's kind of irrelevant. Child porn is harmful to children, and therefore both the people making it and the people looking for it are almost just as bad. It's all well and good saying "We should go after the makers", but they only make it because people look for it. Without people to supply it to, a lot less children would be harmed, because apparently many of the people supplying these pictures online are "businessmen" doing it just for cash.

Grey Day for Elcia:

OT: a lot of these problems would be reduced if we just put convicted child abusers and rapists to death. Wouldn't solve the problem, but at least some justice is served and there's a few less sacks of crap making the shit in the first place.

I disagree with that.

They have committed a horrible crime but killing them is not the solution. All it does at sate the urge for vengance, it doesn't help anyone.

Matthew94:

Grey Day for Elcia:

OT: a lot of these problems would be reduced if we just put convicted child abusers and rapists to death. Wouldn't solve the problem, but at least some justice is served and there's a few less sacks of crap making the shit in the first place.

I disagree with that.

They have committed a horrible crime but killing them is not the solution. All it does at sate the urge for vengance, it doesn't help anyone.

I'd sleep better at night and feel a hell of a lot better walking around outside if I knew my abuser was as dead as a doorknob.

The continued existence of one's attacker is one of the greatest hurdles to coming to terms with your abuse and moving on in life. If putting a filthy animal down makes me or anyone else feel safer and more able to return to their life--the life that animal attempted to ruin with their disgusting, unforgivable urges--go right ahead, I say. It's a fact that convicted rapists and paedophiles are almost certain to offend again--potentially ruining another life. The re-offence rate of animals like that is somewhere in the 90% range. My dad, a prison guard, sees the sacks of shit come back time after time.

Put them down, help their victim reclaim their life, make children and other potential victims everywhere a little safer. Even if it was certain they would never attack anyone ever again, the least they can do to make up for their crime is give their life to help their victim feel safer and happier again.

Grey Day for Elcia:
I'd sleep better at night and feel a hell of a lot better walking around outside if I knew my abuser was as dead as a doorknob.

The continued existence of one's attacker is one of the greatest hurdles to coming to terms with your abuse and moving on in life. If putting a filthy animal down makes me or anyone else feel safer and more able to return to their life--the life that animal attempted to ruin with their disgusting, unforgivable urges--go right ahead, I say. It's a fact that convicted rapists and paedophiles are almost certain to offend again--potentially ruining another life. The re-offence rate of animals like that is somewhere in the 90% range. My dad, a prison guard, sees the sacks of shit come back time after time.

Put them down, help their victim reclaim their life, make children and other potential victims everywhere a little safer. Even if it was certain they would never attack anyone ever again, the least they can do to make up for their crime is give their life to help their victim feel safer and happier again.

Way off the mark on that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Post-incarceration_registries_and_restrictions

The report in 2010 said that since 1983

the average recidivism of sex offenders committing new sex crimes since 1983 is approximately 9 percent, compared to the 42 percent average recidivism rate for all felony offenders committing any new felony offense

The rate for them is much lower than for other felonies.

Again, I disagree. They have commited a horrible crime but I do not think they should give their life to help with the healing process.

This is quite funny. The last time we were in an argument liken this you were saying the person should live and I was advocating death. (When I said people with extremely severe mental disorders should be either aborted or killed shortly after death).

My only wish is that they make animated "child porn" completely legal, instead of forcing someone who has urges (keyword URGES: they don't have a choice about feeling that way) to try and suppress himself completely until he snaps and good ol' society will punish him some more.

theultimateend:

Regnes:

BloatedGuppy:

When I think of child pornography, I think of films/pictures where a child was actually abused to create them, not hand-drawn art or stories or adult actors playing a role. Yes, you've seen people fake being murdered in action films, but it's unlikely you've watched actual snuff films.

There are websites for such things, and they are legal. I have seen an actual living person have his head cut off with a chainsaw for real.

Which I don't suggest, it turns out your head is like...SUPER important.

Omg that made me lol something fierce. I'm sick, I'm in a shit mood and my boyfriend dumped me two days ago, so you can imagine how difficult that is to do.

Well done!

+100

shintakie10:

SaneAmongInsane:

BloatedGuppy:

Yeah it's the "accidentally viewing it for several hours every day" element of this ruling that seems a little questionable. Obviously there needs to be protection for dullards who blithely click into mysterious links, but I kind of assumed something like that was already in place. This seems...more encompassing.

Not that I'm a lawyer, or fully understand the legal implications involved.

Seems like an easy way someone could set another person up. All you need is access to their computer with out them knowing.

I think the law is best left as is. Theres to many ways that could be abused if it's changed.

It already is abused horribly. The only reason no one seems to give a damn is because its bein abused by police and prosecutors to put people away when their only crime was lookin at somethin on the internet. Hell, its abused to put sex offender tags on 17 year olds who text naked pictures of themselves to their partners.

Child pornography laws are so horribly fucked that any progress like this is good progress. Hopefully one day people will get their heads out of their collective asses and realize viewin CP is a victimless crime. If a person rapes a child, go after that person with the full extent of the law. If a person molests a child, same thing. The people who give money to people who molest and rape children? Throw the fuckin book at em. However if a person simply views an image file on the internet and doesn't give a dime to anyone for it, leave them the fuck alone.

Dude, I would not go as far as to say it's victimless. Theres still the child being exploited.

I agree theres a lot of gray area with this shit though where the wrong people being prosecuted. But this is what happens when you have overzelious D.A.s that care more about their conviction rate then true justice.

Esotera:
There needs to be legislation about viewing CP hundreds of times with relative frequency

That would be so fun. People would create spyware to place hundreds of CP ads and getting tons of people arrested and their lives ruined forever.

RaikuFA:
I worry about CP on my comp. I worry that if I send it into someone who will fix it, they'll plant CP into my computer then call the cops.

Or my computer gets hacked and its planted into my computer.

Actually that is kind of true. The only thing you can do is search for spyware and trojans regularly.

I am against legal prosecution for the possession of CP on a hard drive because of the ways CP is distributed. The connection between transactions is done by spyware/backdoor trojans etc etc to keep their identities hidden.

If you enforced a random check on everyone who has posted in this thread, I bet at least one would go to jail for possession of CP that they didn't even know about.

RazadaMk2:
snip

Though that was a massive snip, rest assured I read your post.

This argument is getting longer and longer so I'm going to boil it down to the fundamentals.

All I believe when it comes to this matter is that the current law is a good idea as the previous one was too harsh. Even if you accidentally found CP you could be jailed for it, this law ensures a person who saw CP accidentally does not have his life ruined and I am in support of that.

That is all.

Matthew94:

RazadaMk2:
snip

Though that was a massive snip, rest assured I read your post.

This argument is getting longer and longer so I'm going to boil it down to the fundamentals.

All I believe when it comes to this matter is that the current law is a good idea as the previous one was too harsh. Even if you accidentally found CP you could be jailed for it, this law ensures a person who saw CP accidentally does not have his life ruined and I am in support of that.

That is all.

Well thank fuck for that. Hopefully this whole issue can be put to bed and people can get on with their lives.

Seriously, everyone has taken this WAAAY out of context.

Although I don't think this is quite correct yet, I do think this ruling could be useful.

What is needed is a way to determine if the person went looking for it or whether it happened without their knowledge. Your DNS being hacked and sending you to a child porn site is very different to going on to Google and typing 'Child Pornography.' (I know this isn't quite a perfect analogy but you know what I mean)

I understand that proxy servers etc make it difficult if not impossible to really track people in this way, and that is one of the things that really worries me about proxy servers, but there must be ways to determine whether someone has actually gone searching for child porn or not.

LegendaryGamer0:

evilneko:

Das Boot:

That is a misconception. It actually is illegal in the US.

This would appear to be correct. 18 USC sec 1466A (enacted 2003 under Shrub in the PROTECT Act) does indeed appear to make, for example, lolicon hentai illegal to produce, possess, distribute, or receive. According to wiki, it's been tested in court and has resulted in convictions.

In which case gelbooru better not be hosted in the US. (heck, even safebooru might have problems)

And also the scanlation group SaHa better hope that a judge can see the literary value of Kodomo no Jikan. >.>

Actually, it's currently in legal hell.
And unconstitutional. To my recollection, it was actually put on the back burner as soon as it was signed in.

So, it's illegal by an illegal law that was nulled yet has been actively used in court on at least one occasion while the Supreme Court won't actually have a hearing on the damn thing so nothing will get done.

So, it's a legal gray area, to put it very simply. Oh, and it's only "illegal" in cases where it is "obscene", an idea that I'm pretty sure has the founding fathers turning over in their graves. :/

So, legal status of it in the United States is: Do whatever you want because the law has no actual opinion on it.

Say it with me now, Land of the Freeeeeeeee, and the Home of the Brrrraaaavvvvveeeee~

Please excuse me for any incorrect info because I cannot find any info that is consistent and I just woke up so my eyes are seeing double and at a clarity of shit-filled water. :L

EDIT:I also beg people to actually follow the link and read the MSNBC article. The thread title is highly misleading, though likely unintentionally.

Oh yeah that feeling when you can go to prison for watching/reading strike witches, dance in the vampire bund or knj because others find it offensive.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked