Guest American Woman Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Yet, using drugs and possessing drugs is not? Huh? Whatever. I was referring to comparing the two issues - they are different; ie: not comparable. Quote
jacee Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Ooops ! Sorry about that . I agree. Dont put him on ignore, you'll miss some classicly ignorant posts ! Ya ... but I might just say something that will get me banned ... and he's not worth it. Just a recap of Scotty's views on CHILD porn: What I'm talking about is some guy downloading a picture in his basement. I just don't see that as being such a horrific thing that we need to destroy them and put them in prison. Maybe it's simply because I have a lot of empathy and imagination. I can imagine what would happen if some bluenose decided that anyone who had naked pictures of women must go to prison. I mean, huh? Why? Because you're lusting after what you're hard-wired to lust after? I think that society was so disgusted with these people, that it basically criminalized their fantasies. But these people can't control their fantasies, they can't control what they find sexually attractive. It's not like they wanted to find themselves sexually attracted to children, after all. Yep ... I still think the right of children to live unmolested is the issue. There is no 'right' to view child sexual abuse. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) 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. From what I'm reading, state laws vary - and yes, do refer to having paid for it. Also, on some sites the pics are available without purposely downloading them; ie: clicking on "download" - which must be done to view some things out there. But what you're saying about the "computer's cache" is true, and can be scary - because I'm reading that people have things on their computers that they have no idea are there because visiting one site can result in the computer "caching" something from another site. I just read a case about a high school boy who was visiting porn sites on his computer - not child porn - but unknowing to him, that site linked him to a child porn site, which his computer picked up on and stored without his ever having visited the site. The police showed up at his door and he was dumbfounded - and in deep trouble with the law. He passed every lie detector test and every psychological evaluation saying he was telling the truth, but the "evidence" was there. It's scary, really. At any rate, this is why it's not illegal just to "view" in some states, as a person could unintentionally come upon it. To save it or purchase it is illegal everywhere. Edited February 8, 2012 by American Woman Quote
guyser Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 But what you're saying about the "computer's cache" is true, and can be scary - because I'm reading that people have things on their computers that they have no idea are there because visiting one site can result in the computer "caching" something from another site. I just read a case about a high school boy who was visiting porn sites on his computer - not child porn - but unknowing to him, that site linked him to a child porn site, which his computer picked up on and stored without his ever having visited the site. The police showed up at his door and he was dumbfounded - and in deep trouble with the law. He passed every lie detector test and every psychological evaluation saying he was telling the truth, but the "evidence" was there. It's scary, really. At any rate, this is why it's not illegal just to "view" in some states, as a person could unintentionally come upon it. To save it or purchase it is illegal everywhere. I bet that kid was visiting some crazy ass porn sites. All normal legal porn sites have Sec 2257 disclosures (age related) prominently displayed on their front web screen. They are all very keen to never be linked to nefarious sites and constantly search for links that are not legit. Quote
dre Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 From what I'm reading, state laws vary - and yes, do refer to having paid for it. Also, on some sites the pics are available without purposely downloading them; ie: clicking on "download" - which must be done to view some things out there. But what you're saying about the "computer's cache" is true, and can be scary - because I'm reading that people have things on their computers that they have no idea are there because visiting one site can result in the computer "caching" something from another site. I just read a case about a high school boy who was visiting porn sites on his computer - not child porn - but unknowing to him, that site linked him to a child porn site, which his computer picked up on and stored without his ever having visited the site. The police showed up at his door and he was dumbfounded - and in deep trouble with the law. He passed every lie detector test and every psychological evaluation saying he was telling the truth, but the "evidence" was there. It's scary, really. At any rate, this is why it's not illegal just to "view" in some states, as a person could unintentionally come upon it. To save it or purchase it is illegal everywhere. YEah the link would get cached as part of the HTML on the site, but the browser wont actually follow the link. Im definately warry of any laws that impose criminal penalties for simply viewing illegal material for this reason and others. Basically I dont support the government being able to look at your computer AT ALL, or at your ISP's records without the same kind of judicial review thats used to obtain a search warrant. The problem is all these ISP's and telecoms are incredibly cowardly and will turn over your private data with a simple phonecall from justice. No matter who you do or what you do, people should be very careful when they use the internet. You essentially have NO PRIVACY AT ALL, and as you pointed out, its often impossible to tell which content is illegal and which isnt. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest American Woman Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 I bet that kid was visiting some crazy ass porn sites. All normal legal porn sites have Sec 2257 disclosures (age related) prominently displayed on their front web screen.They are all very keen to never be linked to nefarious sites and constantly search for links that are not legit. Maybe I'm not understanding it and therefore not presenting it correctly; I am basically computer illiterate when it comes to such things - so I found the article from "20/20" and I quote: What is so frightening about Matt's case? It could happen to anyone. [...] "If you have an Internet connection, high speed, through, let's say, your cable company, or through the phone company, that computer is always on, and basically you have an open doorway to the outside," Loehrs said. "So the home user has no idea who's coming into their computer." Loehrs went into the Bandys' computer and what she found could frighten any parent -- more than 200 infected files, so-called backdoors that allowed hackers to access the family computer from remote locations, no where near Matthew's house. Quote
guyser Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 The problem is all these ISP's and telecoms are incredibly cowardly and will turn over your private data with a simple phonecall from justice. Not my understanding at all . Rather they are loathe to give anything up without a warrant demanding the do so. Quote
jbg Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 If this web site was properly moderated you'd have already been suspended. Your rejoinder to him was likewise discourteous. And as for moderation how much are you paying? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
guyser Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Maybe I'm not understanding it and therefore not presenting it correctly; I am basically computer illiterate when it comes to such things - so I found the article Thanks for the link Bloody scary to say the least. That said there are a number of things that dont add up , the story is sketchy to me. If one has no idea who 'pulled the trigger' then they cant just charge all of them. If the DA cannot prove who did put them on there, or show who dl'd them , then he really has no case for reasonable conviction, which I think is why the plea was offered. Thankfully that Judge has wits about him. The DA was probably looking for a media pay day....and elected (ugh!) The parents, and the kid, who is savvy beyond us I am sure of that, failed to install a secure virus/malware program. Probably didnt lock it out either . The pics come from links, and the links come into play by visiting no secure, non-2257 sites. That he admits he got the sites from his buds tells me they werent Playboy topless sites, but the stuff one has to really search for. Either way, it can happen to any of us for the most part, unless you are a true computer geek (not me at all) and can read and edit and delete code. One thing never to do? Trade a computer in. Monitor? sure, give it away, but always take the hard drive out and physically destroy it, cut it in half, bury it in an acide bath, throw it into Lake Michigan at 6 miles out.....but dont leave it around for anyone to play with. Quote
dre Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Not my understanding at all . Rather they are loathe to give anything up without a warrant demanding the do so. Then why did the government have to grant a bunch of large ISP's immunity after the fact, when they turned over thousands of peoples records to the justice department after 911 simply because they were asked to? No court order what-so-ever. A couple of them DID tell the government to go pound sand, but most of them just said "ok, here you go!". The problem of course is that the government has leverage. The Telecomms are constantly lobbying the government for various things, and theres lots of deals to be made. Plus if justice is saying they are safe from prosecution, then most organizations will just comply with the government request. Edited February 8, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
guyser Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Then why did the government have to grant a bunch of large ISP's immunity after the fact, when they turned over thousands of peoples records to the justice department after 911 simply because they were asked to? No court order what-so-ever. A couple of them DID tell the government to go pound sand, but most of them just said "ok, here you go!". The problem of course is that the government has leverage. The Telecomms are constantly lobbying the government for various things, and theres lots of deals to be made. Plus if justice is saying they are safe from prosecution, then most organizations will just comply with the government request. Oh ok....I was coming from a CDN experience. Yes I do recall the mass turnover but was thinking about recently whereby ISP's were diggin in their heels and saying no. Quote
dre Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Oh ok....I was coming from a CDN experience. Yes I do recall the mass turnover but was thinking about recently whereby ISP's were diggin in their heels and saying no. Good, I hope youre right, and I hope they do dig in their heals. I personally operate under the assumption though, that if people in the law enforcement and intelligence business want to see your data, theyre going to see it... whether the public ever knows about it or not. I hope Im wrong! Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 I was referring to comparing the two issues - they are different; ie: not comparable. I was referring to your underlying reasoning, which is also different in both cases. Ultimately, we're talking about the same thing, use vs possession. That much should be obvious. In one argument, you say you can't use without possessing, so use is illegal by default. In the other, you're saying use and possession are totally different things and that only possession is illegal. Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Remember a few years ago there was a guy, out BC way I think who was an "artist", and he drew pictures of child porn. But he didn't use real kids. Point is, he called it "art", and claimed that no one was harmed in making the paintings. I think his work got banned anyway. Just thought I'd throw that in here because most of the discussion is centred around the concept that children are harmed in making child porn, and that's reason to make it illegal and press charges against people who make it or possess it. Not that I advocate it but, it's a complex issue. I'm not really sure. My instincts tell me it's still wrong. But then, murder is illegal. So are "snuff films" where someone gets murdered. But making a fantasy movie about murder is considered acceptable to most people. So what's your take on this? Quote
dre Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Remember a few years ago there was a guy, out BC way I think who was an "artist", and he drew pictures of child porn. But he didn't use real kids. Point is, he called it "art", and claimed that no one was harmed in making the paintings. I think his work got banned anyway. Just thought I'd throw that in here because most of the discussion is centred around the concept that children are harmed in making child porn, and that's reason to make it illegal and press charges against people who make it or possess it. Not that I advocate it but, it's a complex issue. I'm not really sure. My instincts tell me it's still wrong. But then, murder is illegal. So are "snuff films" where someone gets murdered. But making a fantasy movie about murder is considered acceptable to most people. So what's your take on this? I think the vast majority of people have a moral issue with the idea of throwing someone in jail for doing stuff that doesnt directly harm others, or posessing certain literature. The problem is those ideals run into real practical problems. My own opinion is that personal freedom should trump everything else. If you have a film or book depicting a real murder, rape, or molestation you should be not be charged with a crime. The government should go after PUBLISHERS and throw them in prison for a long time. Even if throwing people in prison for simple posession WOULD reduce the rate of child molestation a bit, I STILL would oppose it because its just such a slippery damn slope. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jacee Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 I think the vast majority of people have a moral issue with the idea of throwing someone in jail for doing stuff that doesnt directly harm others, or posessing certain literature. The problem is those ideals run into real practical problems. My own opinion is that personal freedom should trump everything else. If you have a film or book depicting a real murder, rape, or molestation you should be not be charged with a crime. The government should go after PUBLISHERS and throw them in prison for a long time. Even if throwing people in prison for simple posession WOULD reduce the rate of child molestation a bit, I STILL would oppose it because its just such a slippery damn slope. Simple possession of something can be a crime, if the items were obtained illegally - ie, possession of stolen goods, even if you don't know they were stolen. I'm not suggesting the situations are exactly similar, but in fact child pornography - photos or video - cannot even exist legally because its existence requires that child sexual abuse occur. Those who view it always know it was illegally obtained, so I can't see how their possession of it can possibly be considered benign. Can an adult be raped and the film be legally possessed? I don't think so, and kids deserve the same consideration in law. Quote
dre Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Can an adult be raped and the film be legally possessed? I don't think so, and kids deserve the same consideration in law. I disagree. If the person clicked some link on a viral video site they will be in posession of whatever material is returned. Not only is it a bad idea for the government to try to figure out whether the download was intentional or not, its a bad idea for the government to know whats on his computer in the first place. The government should know about as much about your web browsing habits as they know which shelf in your closet the green blanket is kept on. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 I disagree. If the person clicked some link on a viral video site they will be in posession of whatever material is returned. Not only is it a bad idea for the government to try to figure out whether the download was intentional or not, its a bad idea for the government to know whats on his computer in the first place. The government should know about as much about your web browsing habits as they know which shelf in your closet the green blanket is kept on. Let's agree that jacee is right, except for the scenario of online caching. The legal code has not caught up to technology yet. I'm sure we can all agree that someone who inadvertently has child porn loaded into their cache is not a criminal. However, someone ought rightfully to be considered a criminal that seeks out child pornography, posts on message boards that exchange the stuff, and uploads it back to the internet for distribution, whether they were involved in the creation or not. As jacee argued quite well, the product cannot exist without a crime occurring. That crime is a horrific vile act that our society rightfully has absolutely no tolerance towards. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 On a side note, this illustrates the problem with mandatory minimums perfectly. Judges must be able to use their discretion based on the facts of a case. Quote
dre Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Let's agree that jacee is right, except for the scenario of online caching. The legal code has not caught up to technology yet. I'm sure we can all agree that someone who inadvertently has child porn loaded into their cache is not a criminal. However, someone ought rightfully to be considered a criminal that seeks out child pornography, posts on message boards that exchange the stuff, and uploads it back to the internet for distribution, whether they were involved in the creation or not. As jacee argued quite well, the product cannot exist without a crime occurring. That crime is a horrific vile act that our society rightfully has absolutely no tolerance towards. Yeah, as soon as he posts or uploads content hes a publisher. You can get a warrant, and go arrest him. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wolf Larsen Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 When I think of child pornography I think of a seven-year-old, not a 17-year-old! However, the US government has labeled teenagers as "sex offenders" for sending nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends or girlfriends. These teenagers are then listed as "sex offenders" for life! While I am concerned about children being exploited frankly I think that the government is exploiting this issue to blind us to the fact that one out of every five children in the USA is growing up in poverty! Children growing up in poverty in the capitalist USA is a far bigger problem because vast numbers of children are growing up in poverty in the USA. In addition, any computer hacker or government can download child pornography to your computer without your knowledge. Therefore, everyone is a potential "child pornographer", because it can be on your computer without your knowledge! In addition, should you visit porn sites on the Internet like many people do, how do you know that every one of those nude models is 18?? You assume that their 18, but if you're looking at a photo of a 17-year-old suddenly you're a "child pornographer". Quote Capitalism Sucks!
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 In addition, should you visit porn sites on the Internet like many people do, how do you know that every one of those nude models is 18?? You assume that their 18, but if you're looking at a photo of a 17-year-old suddenly you're a "child pornographer". That's why I always download my porn from Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jbg Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 That's why I always download my porn from Canada. That: Doesn't look good on you; and Should not be admitted on the Internet, even as a joke. I'm just telling you that for your own good. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
guyser Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 When I think of child pornography I think of a seven-year-old, not a 17-year-old! However, the US government has labeled teenagers as "sex offenders" for sending nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends or girlfriends. These teenagers are then listed as "sex offenders" for life! The Law of Unintended Consequences. Seems silly but there you go. While I am concerned about children being exploited frankly I think that the government is exploiting this issue to blind us to the fact that one out of every five children in the USA is growing up in poverty! Children growing up in poverty in the capitalist USA is a far bigger problem because vast numbers of children are growing up in poverty in the USA. Um No...and no again for clarity! insert facepalm here In addition, any computer hacker or government can download child pornography to your computer without your knowledge. Therefore, everyone is a potential "child pornographer", because it can be on your computer without your knowledge! In addition, should you visit porn sites on the Internet like many people do, how do you know that every one of those nude models is 18?? You assume that their 18, but if you're looking at a photo of a 17-year-old suddenly you're a "child pornographer". There is a little blurb on respectful sites based in the USA called USC 2257 compliant. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 That: Doesn't look good on you; and Should not be admitted on the Internet, even as a joke. I'm just telling you that for your own good. He has been reported to the RCMP. I'm sure they'll forward it to the FBI for investigation. Quote
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.