Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 And the CHILD porn viewers. And apparently you, you sick f***. More insults... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 The law is too broad. It should target those who produce, distribute or own images of children being abused (imo, a 16 year old, who is considered able to consent to sexual act, is not a child, and NO I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in pictures of 16 year olds). As for the argument that viewing of such image is a victimless act. It is not. The viewing of such images feed their creation. Those who chose to view images of children being abused knowing that these are children being abused are as much guilty of a crime as those why being stolen property knowing it has been stolen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Libel? I just repeated what you posted. You said you wanted to see the videos and pictures. Either your ignorance or dishonesty is at work here. I said nothing of the sort. I said that I would reserve judgement as to the validity of the claims of how horrible this was until I saw what form of child porn was being discussed. As it turns out this was a gay porn site which featured teenage boys. I have no further information on whether this was an imitation site or a deliberate child porn site or not. Many porn sites make claims about 'young' people, or teenagers, but what they really means is 'young looking but over 18'. You can find them all over the internet. So it's possible that the great majority of the boys featured were actually over 18. I note that in the discussions about Bishop Lemay's computer porn it was stated that less than 1% were actually of males under 18. In any event, this was apparently not a site devoted to per-adolescents, and as such was not aimed at pedophiles. Edited February 4, 2012 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) The law is too broad. It should target those who produce, distribute or own images of children being abused (imo, a 16 year old, who is considered able to consent to sexual act, is not a child, and NO I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in pictures of 16 year olds). As for the argument that viewing of such image is a victimless act. It is not. The viewing of such images feed their creation. Those who chose to view images of children being abused knowing that these are children being abused are as much guilty of a crime as those why being stolen property knowing it has been stolen. I've seen no evidence, nor even an attempt to discover whether or not the viewing of "real" child porn (as opposed to teens with cameras) feeds their creation. From all I've read child porn is simply an aspect of child sexual abuse. That is, it's secondary to the sexual abuse, a byproduct, like a souvenir. The lack of an ability to distribute that video would not mean it wouldn't be taken. The lack of an ability to take a video would not mean the offender wouldn't molest. In any event, this is what I'd do with the laws. 1st. I would change the law to make it only apply to those who were 13 and under. The obscenity provisions of the criminal code would continue to apply to pornography which featured those under 18. Those of you who doubtless don't know anything about that might be interested to learn such material has always been banned and it's distribution punishable by large fines and/or prison terms. Possession, however, was not criminally punishable though subject to seizure. 2nd. I would remove artificially created images/videos (ie, drawings and paintings done from the imagination, computer animations) and written material from the child porn laws entirely. Their inclusion is a criminalizing of people's fantasies. People are entitled to their fantasies, however dark they might be. Again, those who claim that this would incite real life attacks should be aware that no study of pornography has ever shown a causal link between viewing it and real life abuse. I would keep the laws on distribution as is. I would, however, change the law on consumption. I would substitute heavy fines and mandatory treatment for jail time unless there was evidence that the offender had, in fact, molested children in some way. I would also not release their name to the media, though their name would still go on a sexual offender list. Edited February 4, 2012 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 More insults... You're right Michael.Scotty, I apologize. The thread is about CHILD porn, always a crime. Please be clear about the distinction that 'victimless viewing' only applies to consensual ADULT porn. Child porn is never consensual, never ok, viewing or doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 You're right Michael. Scotty, I apologize. The thread is about CHILD porn, always a crime. Please be clear about the distinction that 'victimless viewing' only applies to consensual ADULT porn. Child porn is never consensual, never ok, viewing or doing. I don't accept either your apology or your premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Cyber - this is an insult and doesn't help the conversation. He said, "I will reserve further judgement till I see exactly what 'child porn' they accessed." [emphasis mine] I'm not sure how I'm being insulting when he was the one that said he wanted to see child porn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I haven't seen any evidence that anyone can make money off this, at least not for long. Child pornography has become a business so profitable that it is no longer limited to pedophiles. Demand exceeds supply and always will... The risk/gain ratio is extremely favorable. And the return on investment is extraordinary. Let's Fight This Terrible Crime Against Our Children Organised crime is involved in the production and distribution of child pornography, which is found as a common element of organised crime profiles.[51][52]... According to Jim Gamble, CEO of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, around 50 per cent of sites showing children being abused are operated on a pay-per-view basis. "The people involved in these sites often aren't doing it because they're deviant by nature. They're doing it because they're business people. It's risk versus profits. We need to reduce the profit motivation." The CEOPP was established in 2006, and targets the finances of organised criminal gangs selling images of child abuse.[60] Child pornography > Organized crime As to its production increasing the frequency of child abuse: According to the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, "While impossible to obtain accurate data, a perusal of the child pornography readily available on the international market indicates that a significant number of children are being sexually exploited through this medium."[30]The United Kingdom children's charity NCH has stated that demand for child pornography on the internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases, due to an increase in the number of children abused in the production process.[31] Child pornography > Child sexual abuse in production and distribution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 He said, "I will reserve further judgement till I see exactly what 'child porn' they accessed." [emphasis mine] I'm not sure how I'm being insulting when he was the one that said he wanted to see child porn. The only ways one can conclude those words meant that he wants to see child porn are through either blatant dishonesty or poor comprehension skills. You choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I'm not sure how I'm being insulting when he was the one that said he wanted to see child porn. The "sick f***" comment, was what I was referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) The "sick f***" comment, was what I was referring to. That was me, not cybercoma.I apologized, but now that I see Scotty's response, I'll retract it, since he maintains that viewing child porn is victimless - though the cops rescued 22 victims when arresting 60 perps. Edited February 5, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Child porn is never consensual, never ok, viewing or doing. Word. And who the heck are these people taking the pictures. How could one live with themselves after that, or during??? Even if you're attracted to that, you'd think the guilt would rip you inside enough to make you vomit and pass out before you could even take a shot. It's like rape. How would having someone screaming in terror & agony beneath you be any kind of enjoyable. Would kind of ruin the mood don't you think?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 That was me, not cybercoma. I apologized, but now that I see Scotty's response, I'll retract it, since he maintains that viewing child porn is victimless - though the cops rescued 22 victims when arresting 60 perps. The viewing of images of child abuse as as much victimless as the purchase of stolen goods. If that's a crime (and it is), so is the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 The viewing of images of child abuse as as much victimless as the purchase of stolen goods. If that's a crime (and it is), so is the other. I don't think simply viewing it is illegal - I think "possession, downloading, paying for it" is what makes it illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 As to its production increasing the frequency of child abuse: Those involved in the fight against child pornography are generally well-meaning people. Among them are a number of hysterics, though. I've read similar such statements before, written by a similar type of activist. One thing they have in common is a singular lack of evidence to support their beliefs. You'll note the cite says "statistics show" and then fails to either name those statistics or give any numbers. At other times where the origin of a given statistic is given I've looked into it and found that the number was simply made up, or wildly exaggerated based on some other figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 I don't think simply viewing it is illegal - I think "possession, downloading, paying for it" is what makes it illegal. The viewing is illegal in Canada. BTW, you can't actually view something without downloading it. It might be an automatic process, but it's in your computer's cache. The law says nothing about having to pay for it, either here or in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 That was me, not cybercoma. I apologized, but now that I see Scotty's response, I'll retract it, since he maintains that viewing child porn is victimless - though the cops rescued 22 victims when arresting 60 perps. I did not say it was entirely victimless. I said it depends on the material. And the police call them 'victims' but they are teenagers, so I'm not sure how victimized they really are. The police like to scare people. As for your apology, you can stick it sideways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I don't think simply viewing it is illegal - I think "possession, downloading, paying for it" is what makes it illegal. How come in this case you make the distinction between possession and viewing, but in the conversation about InSite you couldn't seem to wrap your head around this concept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I did not say it was entirely victimless. I said it depends on the material. And the police call them 'victims' but they are teenagers, so I'm not sure how victimized they really are. The police like to scare people. As for your apology, you can stick it sideways. The apology was retracted.Consent is the issue. Age of consent, and that includes some teenagers. And the victims are not all teenagers. You are evading the issue of consent. Child porn viewing is never ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) The apology was retracted. If this web site was properly moderated you'd have already been suspended. Since the moderator doesn't know how to do his job or isn't interested in doing his job I'll have to put you into my ignore file. I certainly don't intend to engage in any further dialogue with a rancid mind like yours. Edited February 8, 2012 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 ....a rancid mind like yours. He sure isnt the one who is trying to minimize any damage from child porn. You are, and you keep making allowances for children being raped, scarred for life and a burden on society. You seem to....forgive, thats the word, the transgressions of sick adult males because, well, they are teenagers and thats cool . Rancid, the mind is yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 @Scotty He sure isnt the one who is trying to minimize any damage from child porn. You are, and you keep making allowances for children being raped, scarred for life and a burden on society. You seem to....forgive, thats the word, the transgressions of sick adult males because, well, they are teenagers and thats cool . Rancid, the mind is yours. Thanks guyser ... and it's 'she'. It isn't just teenagers. Scotty has siad viewing child porn is ok because it's just pictures taken by perps and no children are being molested at the time. Meanwhile the article posted said that the police rescued 22 child victims in their sweep, and referred 15 others - likely the adolescent victims - to counsellors. His views on this topic are certainly abhorent to me. Like you said, he's not the one being raped and scarred for life. I think we can leave it up to the courts to sort through any cases of consensual activity between teenagers. Other than that, his justifications are repulsive. But I guess I can just put him on ignore too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 @Scotty Thanks guyser ... and it's 'she'. Ooops ! Sorry about that . His views on this topic are certainly abhorent to me. Like you said, he's not the one being raped and scarred for life.I think we can leave it up to the courts to sort through any cases of consensual activity between teenagers. Other than that, his justifications are repulsive. But I guess I can just put him on ignore too. I agree. Dont put him on ignore, you'll miss some classicly ignorant posts ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 How come in this case you make the distinction between possession and viewing, but in the conversation about InSite you couldn't seem to wrap your head around this concept? Because they are two completely different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Because they are two completely different things. Yet, using drugs and possessing drugs is not? Huh? Whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.