Please attack this man

[Argus]

I'm trying to figure out if Global News is actually trying to encourage violence against this man or merely doing its best to make it easy for those who might think of committing violence on their own.

Global News

[Mr.Canada]

Collecting the pictures is the first step before he starts grooming a child for sex. Anyone caught with these pictures deserves everything they get. This filth isn't fit to call human and should be treated as such.

[ToadBrother]

Collecting the pictures is the first step before he starts grooming a child for sex. Anyone caught with these pictures deserves everything they get. This filth isn't fit to call human and should be treated as such.

After he's convicted, right? I mean, before that he's innocent, technically at least.

[Guest American Woman]

How stupid must he be to have brought a laptop filled with child porn into a repair shop?

[bloodyminded]

How stupid must he be to have brought a laptop filled with child porn into a repair shop?

You know, now I think of it, this isn't the first time I've heard of this happening. Well, the stupider the pedophiles, the better.

[Argus]

Collecting the pictures is the first step before he starts grooming a child for sex.

Twaddle. The guy is a senior. You don't become a pedophile in your old age. If the pictures are of actual children (as opposd to late teens) then he's had that fixation his entire life. And since the police can be assumed to have looked very carefully for any evidence he ever did anything improper with a child I think we can assume there's no such evidence.

Anyone caught with these pictures deserves everything they get. This filth isn't fit to call human and should be treated as such.

And what dirty fantasies do you have which might get you treated as filth by people who discover them? If that hot blonde in the next pew read your mind and could jump up and denounce you to the congregation would you be thrown out on your ass and considered unfit for human company?

If the guy is a pedophile he at least is the victim of a mental illness (paedophila is a psychiatric condition). If he really has the hots for kiddies and has gone through his entire life without touching one then I'd congratulate him on his restraint.

Furthermore, and more germane, I don't think I've ever seen this kind of thing when vicious bikers or gang members are arrested, bank robbers, rapists or even murderers. There seems to be a general awareness on the part of the media that showing the suspect's home and talking to his neighbors - at least while he's still out on bail - can be an incitement to violence. So have the media, like Mr. Canada, decided that violence against him is acceptable?

[Guest American Woman]

And what dirty fantasies do you have which might get you treated as filth by people who discover them? If that hot blonde in the next pew read your mind and could jump up and denounce you to the congregation would you be thrown out on your ass and considered unfit for human company?

You do realize the difference between fantasies of the mind and acting on fantasies, right?

[Guest American Woman]

I'm trying to figure out if Global News is actually trying to encourage violence against this man or merely doing its best to make it easy for those who might think of committing violence on their own.

Global News

It's not just Global News; CTV is reporting "Lane lives with his brother in the Lawrence Avenue West and Weston Road area." link

[bill_barilko]

You know, now I think of it, this isn't the first time I've heard of this happening. Well, the stupider the pedophiles, the better.

That's how they caught Gary Glitter, the first time anyway, the second time he was caught abusing kids in Viet Nam and spent a couple years in jail there.

[bush_cheney2004]

How stupid must he be to have brought a laptop filled with child porn into a repair shop?

Not too surprising....we had a guy at work call Desktop Services for a hard drive upgrade...said his was running out of storage space. The service tech logged in remotely only to find the hard drive filled to the brim with porn.

Guy was terminated the following day. Dumb.

[M.Dancer]

Not too surprising....we had a guy at work call Desktop Services for a hard drive upgrade...said his was running out of storage space. The service tech logged in remotely only to find the hard drive filled to the brim with porn.

Guy was terminated the following day. Dumb.

Can;t imagine saving porn...I mean it's not like it's Playboy magazine, saved for the articles. You see porn for a moment, you forget it just as quick.

[bush_cheney2004]

Can;t imagine saving porn...I mean it's not like it's Playboy magazine, saved for the articles. You see porn for a moment, you forget it just as quick.

I agree...such is the nature of porn. Old porn is boring....but NEW porn is fresh!

[M.Dancer]

I agree...such is the nature of porn. Old porn is boring....but NEW porn is fresh!

There's nothing particularly wrong with wanting to look at the same sexy body over and over again...that was one of the reasons I got married.

[bush_cheney2004]

There's nothing particularly wrong with wanting to look at the same sexy body over and over again...that was one of the reasons I got married.

Then it would be art....not porn!!

[kimmy]

Furthermore, and more germane, I don't think I've ever seen this kind of thing when vicious bikers or gang members are arrested, bank robbers, rapists or even murderers. There seems to be a general awareness on the part of the media that showing the suspect's home and talking to his neighbors - at least while he's still out on bail - can be an incitement to violence. So have the media, like Mr. Canada, decided that violence against him is acceptable?

Indeed. My recollection of most news reports about charges being laid is that while photos are sometimes provided, I don't recall such reports providing detailed information on how to find the accused.

I wonder what the decision making process was.

-k

[Argus]

You do realize the difference between fantasies of the mind and acting on fantasies, right?

Yes, and there's been no suggestion he acted on his fantasies, despite the fact he was a teacher for over 30 years.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 21 April 2010 - 02:11 PM, said: You do realize the difference between fantasies of the mind and acting on fantasies, right?

Yes, and there's been no suggestion he acted on his fantasies, despite the fact he was a teacher for over 30 years.

Collecting child porn is acting on his fantasy, and it's illegal. If his fantasies were in his mind rather than in his computer, he wouldn't be in any trouble.

[g_bambino]

Collecting child porn is acting on his fantasy, and it's illegal. If his fantasies were in his mind rather than in his computer, he wouldn't be in any trouble.

Of course it's illegal; that's not the point. What's being argued is that collecting illegal images is not inseparable from "grooming a child for sex," which was what was meant by "acting on the fantasy."

[Argus]

Collecting child porn is acting on his fantasy, and it's illegal. If his fantasies were in his mind rather than in his computer, he wouldn't be in any trouble.

Child porn is a crime because society considers those fantasies to be abhorrent. It is an emotional issue. Almost all men look at porn. If you like blondes, midgets, Asians, bondage, goats or whatever, you like to look at that kind of porn. Paedophiles, one assumes, are no different. Yet there is no evidence that looking at porn causes violence. Nor is there any evidence looking at child-porn causes violence.

I would consider that showing that video of the suspect's picture and his home are more likely to cause violence.

[Argus]

Of course it's illegal; that's not the point. What's being argued is that collecting illegal images is not inseparable from "grooming a child for sex," which was what was meant by "acting on the fantasy."

Society has gone wonkers over the fabled predatory paedophile. In fact, only a tiny, minuscule number of such child sexual attacks are perpetrated by such people. The vast, vast majority are done by family members, invariably under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And they're not grooming anyone. They're just doing it.

[bloodyminded]

Society has gone wonkers over the fabled predatory paedophile. In fact, only a tiny, minuscule number of such child sexual attacks are perpetrated by such people. The vast, vast majority are done by family members, invariably under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And they're not grooming anyone. They're just doing it.

You're completely right, and the recurring myths of "stranger danger" tell us something about how we as a society simply refuse to face up to the actual issue. I would bet a sizeable chunk of cash that the majority of people aren't even aware of the truth you just cited.

Always look to the lurking "other" or outsider when you can. It's much easier.

[Guest American Woman]

Child porn is a crime because society considers those fantasies to be abhorrent.

I would say child porn is a crime because it requires involving innocent children in porn.

It is an emotional issue. Almost all men look at porn. If you like blondes, midgets, Asians, bondage, goats or whatever, you like to look at that kind of porn.

No argument there. But aside from the goats, and I'm not sure how animal abuse laws would come into play, the "blondes, midgets, Asians, bondage" etc. all involve adults, who can make their own decisions regarding their actions. Furthermore, one can legally pursue blondes, midgets, and Asians, so long as they are adults. So it matters not if looking at such porn triggers the desire to engage in such sex.

Paedophiles, one assumes, are no different. Yet there is no evidence that looking at porn causes violence. Nor is there any evidence looking at child-porn causes violence.

I don't think child porn is illegal so much because there's a fear that it causes violence, but mostly because looking at and collecting child porn creates a demand for it -- putting children at risk. If there is no market for it, children won't become the subject/victims of being involved in child porn.

[kimmy]

I would say child porn is a crime because it requires involving innocent children in porn.

(...)

I don't think child porn is illegal so much because there's a fear that it causes violence, but mostly because looking at and collecting child porn creates a demand for it -- putting children at risk. If there is no market for it, children won't become the subject/victims of being involved in child porn.

That's certainly true (and deservedly so) for pornography created using real children.

However, it's much harder to rationalize when material under consideration is less cut-and-dried.

We had a thread here a while back where the topic of discussion was someone charged with child pornography offenses for having pornographic cartoons of the Simpsons characters on their computer.

As well, I believe there have been incidents where written fiction has been deemed to be child pornography for purposes of laying charges.

As well, I believe there have been many incidents where photos of children that were not exploitive in nature were nonetheless considered child pornography in the opinion of law enforcement officials. One that was mentioned here the last time a child pornography topic was discussed was where a cheerleader got a visit from the police for having photos of her team-mates goofing around in their underwear on her facebook page. I believe that child pornography prosecution has also been mentioned as possible way to stop the trend of "sexting" (sending sexual photos by cell-phone) among teenagers. It's entirely possible that the sort of naked-kid-pictures that just about every parent has in their family photo albums could be considered child pornography if a particularly nasty prosecutor were so inclined.

Obviously there is great concern that real children could be victimized in creating child pornography, and deservedly so.

However, what about completely innocent photographs of children? If somebody had a large collection of the kinds of photos that most parents have of their kids, should they be prosecuted for child porn? Does it only become pornography once somebody thinks its erotic?

And what about drawings or computer art or cartoons or written fiction where no children were involved at all? Should possessing that be against the law as well?

I am certainly in favor of protecting real children from being victimized. However, I am far less convinced that someone possessing drawings or written stories or an unusually large stash of kids-in-the-bathtub pictures should be prosecuted.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

That's certainly true (and deservedly so) for pornography created using real children.

I haven't read anything that indicates that this case doesn't involve porn using real children.

However, it's much harder to rationalize when material under consideration is less cut-and-dried.

And what about drawings or computer art or cartoons or written fiction where no children were involved at all? Should possessing that be against the law as well?

[....]

I am certainly in favor of protecting real children from being victimized. However, I am far less convinced that someone possessing drawings or written stories or an unusually large stash of kids-in-the-bathtub pictures should be prosecuted.

Again, I don't know that any of this has anything to do with the incident under discussion, but like lots of other laws, child porn laws vary from country to country.

The incident where a man was prosecuted for having Simpson child porn was Australia, and cartoon child porn is also illegal in Canada, but not in the U.S.

Definition of child porn in the U.S.:

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. link

Regarding cartoons:

The new act seemed to be primarily and rather specifically aimed at addressing realistic appearing computer generated depictions of minors in sexual situation or engaging in sexual act. The definition by law makers went on to state quite clearly: "This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults", U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 2256 .

Sounds reasonable to me. But what constitutes child porn is really a separate issue from this incident.

[kimmy]

I haven't read anything that indicates that this case doesn't involve porn using real children.

I haven't read anything either way. I'm not discussing this case in particularly, I'm pointing out that the explanation that "we have to protect children from exploitation" doesn't seem applicable to some of the situations where child pornography charges have been applied.

...

the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. link[/color]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, it doesn't matter if a real child was involved in creating pornography, it only needs to look realistic. To me that kind of disputes the claim that protecting children is the intention. And that's in the US, which from your citations appears to have less restrictive laws than we in Canada.

Sounds reasonable to me. But what constitutes child porn is really a separate issue from this incident.

Some of the claims being made in this thread are generalizations that go beyond this specific incident, and deserve a response.

-k