Please attack this man

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Perhaps not, but I'm in agreement with my country's definition of child porn, but more to the point, I was responding to the laws in this particular incident.

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

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.

It means you can't take a computer generated picture, or any "visual depiction," of a child star, for example, or the president's children, and create pornographic images that make it appear as if they are engaging in sexually explicit conduct. I see that as protecting children. I think it would be harmful to the child to have images depicting him/her that way.

[kimmy]

It means you can't take a computer generated picture, or any "visual depiction," of a child star, for example, or the president's children, and create pornographic images that make it appear as if they are engaging in sexually explicit conduct. I see that as protecting children. I think it would be harmful to the child to have images depicting him/her that way.

Except we've gone from trying to protect children from being sexually exploited to trying to protect them from shock or offense. I'm not in favor of either, of course, but they're not the same thing.

Looking at the link you provided earlier...

Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that

* depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or

* depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

And it appears that this section was used to charge a man for possessing Japanese cartoon porn. He was

convicted and the conviction has been upheld.

So it appears that the US might not be much different after all.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Except we've gone from trying to protect children from being sexually exploited to trying to protect them from shock or offense. I'm not in favor of either, of course, but they're not the same thing.

They may not be the same thing, but they are both still "protecting children."

Looking at the link you provided earlier...

And it appears that this section was used to charge a man for possessing Japanese cartoon porn. He was

convicted and the conviction has been upheld.

So it appears that the US might not be much different after all.

Maybe it's not much different; there seems to be conflicting interpretation of the updated law.

But the man you made reference to wasn't just charged with cartoon porn; of the 70 child porn images, 20 of them were cartoons and the rest were digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexual conduct. He also sent and received emails which described parents sexually molesting their children.

So it's difficult to say if he would have been charged and/or convicted, or if the conviction would have been upheld, if the case only involved cartoon porn.

[kimmy]

They may not be the same thing, but they are both still "protecting children."

Yeah, but protecting them from physical danger is quite different from protecting them from shock and outrage. The latter sounds suspiciously close to the sort of overprotective limitations on free speech that you and Dick have chided us Canadians for in the past.

Maybe it's not much different; there seems to be conflicting interpretation of the updated law.

It's two different sections... you noticed the one but missed the one that does specifically target cartoons and so-forth.

But the man you made reference to wasn't just charged with cartoon porn; of the 70 child porn images, 20 of them were cartoons and the rest were digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexual conduct. He also sent and received emails which described parents sexually molesting their children.

So it's difficult to say if he would have been charged and/or convicted, or if the conviction would have been upheld, if the case only involved cartoon porn.

I am reading through the legal decision on his challenge to the conviction (link to PDF) and Mr Whorley challenged all of the convictions against him. The convictions were under 3 different sections of 18 U.S.C. (1466A, 1462, and 2256). His challenge includes specific challenges to the portions of 1466A and 1462 under which he was convicted, the portions relating to charges regarding the cartoons and regarding text-only pornography he was convicted under. The text of the decision makes it clear that the convictions relating to cartoons and to text-only pornography have been upheld.

It is fair to say that we don't know for sure whether he *would* have been charged had his collection of porn only contained cartoons and text. However, it is clear that he *could* have been charged and convicted if his collection had only contained cartoons and text.

So, again, not sold on the idea that this is strictly about protecting children. Even in the land of the free, someone was mad enough about the idea of somebody jerking off to cartoon kiddy-porn to create a law against it.

-k

Edited April 25, 2010 by kimmy

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah, but protecting them from physical danger is quite different from protecting them from shock and outrage. The latter sounds suspiciously close to the sort of overprotective limitations on free speech that you and Dick have chided us Canadians for in the past.

First of all, I've never chided you Canadians for overprotective limitations on free speech.

Secondly, protecting children from a real-life image/likeness of themselves depicting them in graphic sexual activities, having that circulating around, goes way beyond "shock and outrage." So no, it has nothing to do with limitations of free speech and everything to do with protecting children.

It's two different sections... you noticed the one but missed the one that does specifically target cartoons and so-forth.

Nope, I didn't miss a thing. Which is why I provided the more recent ruling clarifying the earlier law.

I am reading through the legal decision on his challenge to the conviction .....[...}]

It is fair to say that we don't know for sure whether he *would* have been charged had his collection of porn only contained cartoons and text. However, it is clear that he *could* have been charged and convicted if his collection had only contained cartoons and text.

He was the first to be charged under the law you refer to, so it's difficult to say if he would have been charged if cartoon porn were the only factor. But likely he would have, hence the clarification I posted. But it remains to be seen if the conviction would have been upheld had his charge only been cartoon porn. The cartoon aspect of his charge was a minor portion of his charges, so it's difficult to say how much of an effect that had.

So, again, not sold on the idea that this is strictly about protecting children. Even in the land of the free, someone was mad enough about the idea of somebody jerking off to cartoon kiddy-porn to create a law against it.

Wow. Everyone in "the land of the free" not agreeing on a point? That's hard to believe. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.

And again, while you may not be sold on the idea that this is strictly about protecting children, I am; and the further clarification of the law, after the first charge made after the law was passed, further convinces me.... at least in the land of the free. Furthermore, I don't believe the cartoon porn was the major factor even in in that case.

As a side note, there's nothing to stop that case from being brought before the Supreme Court, which I've read is under consideration. It ain't over til it's over.

[Argus]

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

My position on the creation of child porn is that the illegal behaviour does not involve the camera. It involves the actual molestation. The photograph or video itself is nothing more than a piece of evidence, or a witness to the crime. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the famous, pulitzer price winning photograph of a South Vietnamese police chief executing an alleged Viet Cong prisoner in the streets, the picture taken as the bullet was fired into the latter's head. Which was the crime there; the execution or the picture? Does the photographer bear some guilt? Should the photographer have been put in prison for taking the picture? The idea is absurd. What about those who looked at the picture? Were they guilty to some degree? Should they have been punished for seeing the picture or for keeping it? Again, the idea is silly.

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.

The point is that despite innumerable studies, often by people trying to prove a link between pornography and violence against women, no one has been able to construct such a link. As for legal pursuits - I can point out to you it is perfectly legal for me to pursue sex with a whole Catholic school full of 16 year olds. However, if I'm caught with a naked picture of one that's considered child pornography. It's also perfectly legal for a fourteen year old to have sex with another fourteen year old. However, if they exchange naked pictures both can be charged with posession and creation of child pornography. Furthermore, if they write sexually explicit stories featuring each other they can also be charged with creation of child pornography.

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.

This is one of the easiest fears to disspell, except no one is the in the business of dispelling fears in this regard. I can tell you that as someone who has put a great deal of effort into investigating the case against porn that is often made - and so by extension as someone who has been forced to examine the case against child porn as well - that this rarely, rarely, rarely happens. It's considerably less than 1% of what we define as child porn, probably less than 1/10th of one percent, in fact.

Most of what we define as child pornography could be better defined as "teen pornography". That's probably about 75-80% under our laws and much of it was taken by the teens themselves. Of the remainder, 99% falls into two categories; the souvenirs taken by paedophiles who molest children, and 30 year old pictures taken when the US briefly legalized child porn (by accident). And to suggest that the paedophiles who molest children would stop if they couldn't take pictures or videos of their molestation is, I'm sure you'll agree, absurd.

Let me suggest to you how such material ought to be handled. First, child porn should be and always has been illegal under obscenity laws. This means it is against the law to sell or distribute it. Naturally, producing it, that is, producing real child porn with real children, is of course, highly illegal under existing laws related to sex with children. As to those who download it and collect it, I would not criminalize them if the pictures involve post adolescent youths (though it would still be illegal under obscenity provisions to sell such material). I would also exempt written material, and material which did not involve actual children (cartoons, drawings), and would put the "artistic defense" back into law.

This leaves the collection of what most people would actually describe as "real" child porn. For those found with such material I would not send them to jail but to a psychiatrist. I would also put their names on watch lists - ie, those lists checked by places like the boy scouts and pre-schools before putting someone in charge of children. And I would cut off their internet access.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Argus

[kimmy]

Secondly, protecting children from a real-life image/likeness of themselves depicting them in graphic sexual activities, having that circulating around, goes way beyond "shock and outrage." So no, it has nothing to do with limitations of free speech and everything to do with protecting children.

I don't disagree. However, there are lots of things that would be horrifying, upsetting, disturbing, or potentially damaging for a child to see. Typically we don't forbid people from having or creating such things, we instead prohibit them from being displayed to children.

Nope, I didn't miss a thing. Which is why I provided the more recent ruling clarifying the earlier law.

I don't see the clarification on the link you provided. However, Mr Whorley's convictions for cartoon porn under section 1466A were upheld in 2008, so it still seems current.

From what I have been trying to read, an earlier (1996) stab at addressing digital pornography had been defeated in court for being overly vague and lacking credible tests of what qualifies as obscene. It appears that the 2003 P.R.O.T.E.C.T. Act (why do they have to make acronyms?) was an attempt to close the loopholes in the earlier legislation, to make it easier to prosecute digital pornography, not more difficult.

He was the first to be charged under the law you refer to, so it's difficult to say if he would have been charged if cartoon porn were the only factor. But likely he would have, hence the clarification I posted. But it remains to be seen if the conviction would have been upheld had his charge only been cartoon porn. The cartoon aspect of his charge was a minor portion of his charges, so it's difficult to say how much of an effect that had.

That's not accurate. First off, if you read the legal decision I linked to, you'll see that the convictions specific to cartoons and text *were* upheld. The appeal specifically challenged the idea that a guy can be convicted of having obscene cartoons, and the ruling specifically says yes, he can. So yes, he could have been put in prison even had his stash contained only cartoons.

As for the idea that the cartoons were a minor portion of those charges, that's not true either. Earlier you wrote...

But the man you made reference to wasn't just charged with cartoon porn; of the 70 child porn images, 20 of them were cartoons and the rest were digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexual conduct. He also sent and received emails which described parents sexually molesting their children.

...but the decision on the appeal shows that that's not the case. Whorley was charged with 75 indictments. He had 20 obscene cartoons, but was charged and convicted for 2 indictments for each cartoon. A further 20 indictments were for 20 obscene emails. Of the 75 indictments, 15 involved actual photographs, and one of those indictments was dropped because there was no evidence that the subject was a minor.

And reading over the summary of events involving his arrest and subsequent investigation, it is clear that the cartoons were what got him in trouble in the first place. The photographs were not discovered until later.

Wow. Everyone in "the land of the free" not agreeing on a point? That's hard to believe. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.

Of course not everyone agrees. However, the law is the law, and clearly the law can be used to punish people for having icky cartoons.

And again, while you may not be sold on the idea that this is strictly about protecting children, I am; and the further clarification of the law, after the first charge made after the law was passed, further convinces me.... at least in the land of the free.

I'm not sure how a law against pornographic cartoons actually protects children, unless one counts Lisa Simpson and Meg Griffin as children.

I think the rationale behind the section allowing someone to be imprisoned for obtaining obscene cartoons is not about protecting children, but rather about the idea that somebody who is interested in this sort of material is a dangerous deviant.

-k

[Sir Bandelot]

there is no evidence that looking at porn causes violence. Nor is there any evidence looking at child-porn causes violence.

But someone still has to take pictures of the kids, right? What's happening there?

If it were legal it would create a market for the pictures. So now you explain how that process isn't harmful.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the famous, pulitzer price winning photograph of a South Vietnamese police chief executing an alleged Viet Cong prisoner in the streets, the picture taken as the bullet was fired into the latter's head. Which was the crime there; the execution or the picture? Does the photographer bear some guilt?

He certainly does if they set up the shot in a studio, to purposely take images of a killing. The comparison of an image taken as news and one taken in a purposely staged environ does not hold up.

[Argus]

He certainly does if they set up the shot in a studio, to purposely take images of a killing. The comparison of an image taken as news and one taken in a purposely staged environ does not hold up.

It holds up if you acknowledge that virtually all of the child porn out there would be out there whether there was a profit in it or not. In fact, there is very little profit in it because the supply cannot reach the market - and that would be unchanged without the law because obscenity provisions always made it illegal to sell or distribute the stuff anyway.

[Argus]

But someone still has to take pictures of the kids, right? What's happening there?

If it were legal it would create a market for the pictures. So now you explain how that process isn't harmful.

If there were actually people setting up studios to take pictures and videos of children in order to supply a market then you'd be correct. I have seen no evidence this still happens, however, nor that it has happened for decades. That sort of thing only happened when child porn was legal.

Now, what there is of it is the byproduct of a crime, but not the reason that crime happened. There have been some wild statements put out about the "dollar value" of the pornography and the child pornography markets, esp on the internet, much of it accepted without question. But if you actually look into it, as a few enterprising journalists have done, you tend to discover that the numbers have no basis in fact.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Argus