Viewing Child Porn – Mental Illness or Criminal Evil?

[Scotty]

The CTV article is actually more detailed: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120202/child-porn-charges-opp120202/20120202/?hub=TorontoNewHome&cid=top

They indicate that there have been 22 victims that have come forward, but they expect more.

Wasn't a word about what exactly they were looking at. But I did not this:

16-year-old from Niagara Falls faces one count of making child pornography and an additional count of possessing child pornography.

Hang her! She texted a naked picture of herself! Shoot here, right granny!!?

Oh, and another quote from your cite:

"It's socially unacceptable and these people know it's socially unacceptable. It's their deepest, darkest secret so they should be expecting a knock on the door."

Socially unacceptable. Uh huh. So we put you in jail for doing something socially unacceptable? What a weird statement to make!

I will reserve further judgement till I see exactly what 'child porn' they accessed, but as I've pointed out, this law can put people in prison for looking at pictures of a naked 17 year old.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Scotty

[BC_chick]

The article said they were all men, no?

[jacee]

If by 'catastrophe' you mean before they molest a child I'd agree.

I don't think looking at a picture in your basement is a catastrophe. I just don't see the damage to society - with the caveat that if there actually were people molesting children to satisfy a porn audience that would change my opinion.

Yes ... people are molesting children to satisfy a porn audience.

Do you get it now?

Still think watching CHILD porn is ok?

[guyser]

Wasn't a word about what exactly they were looking at. But I did not this:

16-year-old from Niagara Falls faces one count of making child pornography and an additional count of possessing child pornography.

Hang her! She texted a naked picture of herself! Shoot here, right granny!!?

Where did it say she texted a photo of herself naked? Cite please.

I am aware of one case that has occurred, however that was in the States and her case was dismissed. The law of unitended consequences can be a bitch since that is not what they want to crack down on.

Oh, and another quote from your cite:

"It's socially unacceptable and these people know it's socially unacceptable. It's their deepest, darkest secret so they should be expecting a knock on the door."

Socially unacceptable. Uh huh. So we put you in jail for doing something socially unacceptable? What a weird statement to make!

It is not wierd at all. The Officer is getting to the root of the problem , that many pedos are among us, but the social acceptance is still verboten. He was talking to an educated audience who would know it is a criminal act to obtain, hold or produce child porn and need not mention that aspect. I suppose you werent in the audience.

I will reserve further judgement till I see exactly what 'child porn' they accessed, but as I've pointed out, this law can put people in prison for looking at pictures of a naked 17 year old.

Nice deflection away from your horrible reasoning to back up child porn purveyors.

You will never legally see these photos and you know it. Not unless...er...never mind.

The photos posted online and on tv , while pixelated or blurred are bad enough. There is no reason to think that children want to be photo'd naked in compromising positions.

These people will have their day in court and most assuredly will be found guilty

Edited February 2, 2012 by guyser

[Scotty]

Yes ... people are molesting children to satisfy a porn audience.

I'm sure that might happen on occasion. But my understanding is the vast, vast majority is not created to satisfy anyone but the person who did the molester.

And that, of course, includes the masses of 'child pornography' created every year by teenagers videotaping themselves.

[Scotty]

The article said they were all men, no?

You're correct. I read too quickly. Though I'm not sure I'd consider a sixteen year old a 'man'. Three sixteen year olds were among the arrested, and note in a TV story they mentioned the police had located six teenage 'victims' which would again suggest this might not be so much 'child' porn as 'teenage' porn. To be specific, this was a gay site focused on teenage boys.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Scotty

[guyser]

I'm sure that might happen on occasion.

16,131 investigations conducted by the Provincial Strategy partners and OPP Child Sexual Exploitation Unit resulting in 5,837 charges against 1,867 people.

Yup, occasion....are you ok? No one in their right mind would publically say someting so ignorant, even ignorant people wouldnt sya that.

[jacee]

I'm sure that might happen on occasion. But my understanding is the vast, vast majority is not created to satisfy anyone but the person who did the molester.

And the CHILD porn viewers.

And apparently you, you sick f***.

But maybe the cops have your IP number now.

60 arrests ... and 9000 IP ADDRESSES OF ONTARIO CHILD PORN VIEWERS who "Should be prepared for a knock on the door"

Police in Ontario know there are at least 8,880 child pornographers online actively swapping and downloading pictures.

And they’re getting away with it.

Police announced Thursday the arrest of 55 men across the province for various sex crimes involving children, the largest ever in Ontario.

They face a total of 213

charges but police expect more arrests and charges in the near future.

But more disturbing, is that police in the Provincial Strategy to Protect Children from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse on the Internet traced 8,940 IP address in the past 180 days.

...

Among the accused are three 16-year-old male teens, a Mississauga Montessori school assistant that dealt with specia needs students, a St. Thomas area photographer of children and the husband of a home day care operator in McDougall Twp.

In the past week, police rescued 22 child victims, all but one from Ontario. Police said 15 others were referred to counsellors.

That child was rescued after police monitored a St. Thomas man allegedly direct another person in Colorado Springs Colo., to sexually abuse the victim. Jason Leonard Sawyer, 31, a photographer, faces 11 charges including sexual assault and counselling to commit sexual assault.

...

Goldschmidt said the suspects were identified through software and despite a shortage of manpower, they [8,940 child porn viewing IP addresses] should be prepared for a knock on their doors.

And frankly, anyone on here defending child porn 'viewing' is probably already on the list.

Edited February 3, 2012 by jacee

[Scotty]

And the CHILD porn viewers.

And apparently you, you sick f***.

Thank you for demonstrating how much thought, logic and evidence goes into the support of this law, a law which, I remind people, was opposed by Canadian bar associations, the Canadian Civil Liberties Union, artists unions and representatives, and the opposition when it was put in place.

Now of course, the mindless hysteria around this issue mutes anyone who dares to suggest the law might be overbroad or ill conceived.

[cybercoma]

I will reserve further judgement till I see exactly what 'child porn' they accessed

I bet you want to see the child porn.

[jacee]

Thank you for demonstrating how much thought, logic and evidence goes into the support of this law, a law which, I remind people, was opposed by Canadian bar associations, the Canadian Civil Liberties Union, artists unions and representatives, and the opposition when it was put in place.

Now of course, the mindless hysteria around this issue mutes anyone who dares to suggest the law might be overbroad or ill conceived.

Well I think there's a few dozen children today who are glad child porn viewers are under surveillance.

Wait for that knock on your door, eh?

They can all have their day ... in court.

Edited February 3, 2012 by jacee

[BC_chick]

You're correct. I read too quickly. Though I'm not sure I'd consider a sixteen year old a 'man'.

Once and for all, does a sixteen year old have the capacity to make sound sexual judgements or no? Or is it just the sixteen year old girls who want to sleep with older men that have reached that capacity?

As for watching kiddie-porn not being a crime - I get what you're saying. I really do. You're not condoning child-molestation, you're just saying that it should not be a crime until someone actually acts on their instinct. Just as it's not a crime to watch porn rape... but it becomes a crime when someone ccommits rape, correct?

If I'm understanding correctly, I agree in theory, but herein lies the difference. Porn rape is still two consenting adults acting out a (particularly disturbing) scene.

Imagine if there was a vast network of men who filmed themselves *actually* raping women and shared their videos online together. Would it still be a victimless crime? No, definitely not. Well, unlike the porn videos, these children actually are being raped in the videos.

Secondly, these sites provide more than just fantasy. Many of them are networks where men interact and even encourage each other. This rationalises the men's fantasies for the perpetrators.

Yes, child-rape has been going on long before child-pornography, but statistically speaking someone is less likely to rape when they feel there is something wrong with their fantasy than when they join a community where it's quite acceptable.

So while I agree with you in theory that it's victimless crime unless someone acts on their fantasy - the reality is that the fantasy does, indeed, create the justification that some need to act on their fantasy.

This is not my theory, this is statistically true according to child-rape police findings.

Edited February 3, 2012 by BC_chick

[jacee]

The pornography charges are related to the abuse of real children, police said.

“Child pornography is the abuse of real children, police said acting OPP Commissioner Scott Tod.

“Every image represents a child victim, every trading or transmission of that image represents a re-victimization of that child.”

Dr. Matt Logan, a psychiatrist and retired RCMP officer, said the images found by police are more than nude photos and show people abusing children.

According to Logan, the use of child pornography is often “only a prelude to actual sexual activity with children.”

http://richmobile.metronews.ca/toronto/local/article/1087848--opp-child-porn-problem-too-much-to-handle

[BC_chick]

Yep the two points I made as well - the abuse is real and it does lead to the real thing.

[g_bambino]

[T]he molesting would happen with or without the presence of cameras or the existence of the internet.

It would. However, would all the abuse that takes place today take place if there weren't cameras and the internet? You're focusing solely on those who for their own benefit sexually abuse children; you've not considered those who do it or prompt others to do it so it can be filmed/photographed and distributed for a profit.

[ed.: italicise]

Edited February 3, 2012 by g_bambino

[Scotty]

I bet you want to see the child porn.

Red Deer lawyer Lorne Goddard sued because a letter Day wrote to the Red Deer Advocate newspaper suggested Goddard might share the interests of his pedophile client, then on trial for child pornography offences.

Goddard sued for libel, and asked for $600,000.

Stockwell Day suit settled for $794,000

[Scotty]

It would. However, would all the abuse that takes place today take place if there weren't cameras and the internet? You're focusing solely on those who for their own benefit sexually abuse children; you've not considered those who do it or prompt others to do it so it can be filmed/photographed and distributed for a profit.

[ed.: italicise]

I haven't seen any evidence that anyone can make money off this, at least not for long. As I've said earlier, you'd be safer running cocaine into Florida than trying to run a child porn site.

[Scotty]

Yep the two points I made as well - the abuse is real and it does lead to the real thing.

If the law was more measured you might have some justification for that sort of statement. Given the law is so broadly based it includes teenagers sexting each other, artists renditions, computer animation, and fictional written stories, I'm afraid I have to disagree.

[Scotty]

Once and for all, does a sixteen year old have the capacity to make sound sexual judgements or no? Or is it just the sixteen year old girls who want to sleep with older men that have reached that capacity?

I'm not sure I understand the question. By law, yes, sixteen year olds can make sexual judgements. It's an oddity of the law that a man can have sex with a sixteen year old quite legally but if he takes a picture of that sixteen year old he becomes a criminal.

As for watching kiddie-porn not being a crime - I get what you're saying. I really do. You're not condoning child-molestation, you're just saying that it should not be a crime until someone actually acts on their instinct. Just as it's not a crime to watch porn rape... but it becomes a crime when someone ccommits rape, correct?

Let me explain the basis for my objection to the current law. First, it is far too broad in that it puts people who might look at seventeen year olds into the same category as those looking at the rape of four year olds. Second, it makes no allowance for the fact that a viewer might honestly not know the person he is looking at is under age. I use the case of Tracy Lords because at 15 she posed as the centerfold of Penthouse, and went on to do a series of adult films while stating she was 22. No one looking at her thought differently. And those pictures and videos would never appeal to pedophiles. Nevertheless, they are all child porn now under the law, and anyone who views them can be so charged.

This leaves open the possibility that anyone downloading porn of young women could be, without intending to, downloading the odd 17 or 16 year old as well, and could thus be liable to imprisonment.

The second major part of my objection is with regard to the fact that those who become aroused by looking at children cannot help being that way, did not ask for it, and must suffer considerably from it. It seems to me the overwhelming repugnance most people feel towards those who are sexually aroused by children, while quite natural, overlooks this fact. They cannot help being aroused by children, and sexuality is one of the most powerful of human instincts. Therefore, while I condemn those who act out on those impulses for the obvious harm it causes children, I am far more hesitant at destroying the lives of those who have never acted out on those impulses, ie, never harmed or attempted to interact sexually with a child, but merely downloaded a decades old picture, or perhaps, fictional stories from the internet.

It should go without saying I have even more issues with destroying the lives of people caught with pictures or videos of teenagers.

If I'm understanding correctly, I agree in theory, but herein lies the difference. Porn rape is still two consenting adults acting out a (particularly disturbing) scene.

Imagine if there was a vast network of men who filmed themselves *actually* raping women and shared their videos online together. Would it still be a victimless crime? No, definitely not. Well, unlike the porn videos, these children actually are being raped in the videos.

I'd like to point out I'm not advocating legalizing child porn. I am in favour of continuing to shut down such sites, and I believe I read in one study that the average lifespan of a child porn site is a matter of days or weeks. Second, I have been debating pornography for years, decades. I have seen over the years many claims about its influence on its consumers, and each and every such claim I have investigated has turned out to be nonsense. No unbiased study has ever concluded that the consumption of pornography incites sexual violence against women. I see no logical reason to conclude child pornography incites violence any more than regular pornography. And no one has ever presented any evidence to the contrary.

Yes, child-rape has been going on long before child-pornography, but statistically speaking someone is less likely to rape when they feel there is something wrong with their fantasy than when they join a community where it's quite acceptable.

I understand what you are saying about mutual reinforcement in that way. As far as I know there is no such online community with regard to rape, and it's difficult to imagine one. And so I accept this might well be a danger in that this 'community' should it continue to exist for long, could encourage real life carrying out of fantasies. But again, I'm not suggesting police should not continue to shut down such sites, or to monitor them and try to find those who sound like they have or are likely to 'act out', or who actually post 'real' child pornography. What I'm saying is some guy who has never harmed a child should not have his life destroyed because they downloaded some stories or videos. I'm not even really saying such material ought to be lawful to possess. It could be removed from them, the police could ascertain if they actually had caused any damage to children, and they could be warned without anyone's name ever being made public. As a local Ottawa lawyer said to the media today, he's had clients who have committed suicide, whose lives have been destroyed over the publication of their names associated with child porn, even those who were later acquitted.

So while I agree with you in theory that it's victimless crime unless someone acts on their fantasy - the reality is that the fantasy does, indeed, create the justification that some need to act on their fantasy.

In a sense, though, that argument is the same one I've been fighting with regard to adult pornography for so many years. Ie, that the consumption of the videos and pictures might cause someone to act out on it. And there's just no evidence to support that. Numerous studies, including at least two presidential commissions, one by Nixon, one by Reagan, were formed to 'prove' pornography encourages sexual violence and they failed miserably.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Scotty

[jacee]

Allowing your point that the net may be too wide, it is critical to do whatever is possible to free children from sexual abuse.

I think 22 child victims justify a few extra arrests/dismissals.

"I'm also gratified to report that 22 victims have been identified," Goldschmidt said. The victims, each from Ontario have all been rescued. "

[cybercoma]

Just as it's not a crime to watch porn rape...

Imagine if there was a vast network of men who filmed themselves *actually* raping women and shared their videos online together.

I just need to clarify something in your post here. Watching two willing paraticipants act out rape sex in a porn video is legal. However, it is illegal to actually have or watch videos of real rape, bestiality, or child pornography.

[cybercoma]

Red Deer lawyer Lorne Goddard sued because a letter Day wrote to the Red Deer Advocate newspaper suggested Goddard might share the interests of his pedophile client, then on trial for child pornography offences.

Goddard sued for libel, and asked for $600,000.

Stockwell Day suit settled for $794,000

Libel? I just repeated what you posted. You said you wanted to see the videos and pictures.

[jacee]

I just need to clarify something in your post here. Watching two willing paraticipants act out rape sex in a porn video is legal. However, it is illegal to actually have or watch videos of real rape, bestiality, or child pornography.

Thanks for clarifying.

Consensual is ok.

Children cannot consent.

Viewing child porn is never ok.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/02/toronto-internet-pornography.html?cmp=rss

Karyn Kennedy, executive director at the Toronto-based Boost Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention, said one difficult aspect for victims is that many of the images will be irretrievable now that they've been shared online.

"I've heard victims that are 40, 50 years old talking about having to come to terms with that, knowing that somewhere somebody is looking at a picture of them."

[BC_chick]

I just need to clarify something in your post here. Watching two willing paraticipants act out rape sex in a porn video is legal. However, it is illegal to actually have or watch videos of real rape, bestiality, or child pornography.

Exactly. Which is why my exact quote, in context, was:

Porn rape is still two consenting adults acting out a (particularly disturbing) scene.

Imagine if there was a vast network of men who filmed themselves *actually* raping women and shared their videos online together. Would it still be a victimless crime? No, definitely not. Well, unlike the porn videos, these children actually are being raped in the videos.

[Michael Hardner]

I bet you want to see the child porn.

Cyber - this is an insult and doesn't help the conversation.