Ex Stephen Harper advisor makes disturbing comments about Child Pornog

[Sleipnir]

In fact, my understanding that the law is broad enough that simply visiting a website with this picture would put you jail time. Don't you think this is over kill?

I guess only for 'simply visiting', otherwise storing/copying/making/disturbing such images/animations should warrant prison term.

[Guest Derek L]

hey now... you're an internet lawyer too! Perhaps we are alumni - yes? Perhaps this ruling extract from Canada's Supreme Court might have relevance:

I am late to the thread... and there does appear to have been some post editing. In that context, I interpret you placing key determination on distinguishing passive complicity in the receipt of mailing list distributions. Or, in other words, you're attempting to parse the word "subscriber" to mean active solicitation. My lawyerly response to that might relate to the standard 'unsubscribe' option presented to mailing list members - as in, 'select the unsubscribe option to remove yourself from this mailing list'... would this not, implicitly, suggest a mailing list member is a... subscriber... of said mailing list - yes?

That’s how I read the members original post’s intent……As to your second question, pure speculation on my part, but if an opponent of Mr Flannigan’s desired to sign him up to the organization, couldn’t they have signed him up for snail mail to say his (former) University address?

As to hyper linking, no, the original post wasn’t, nor a “quote”, but the posters own “typed” words.

[Guest Derek L]

All true.

But do you think any court would convict on libel considering he knowingly remained on that mailing list? The fact alone, that he is on that list, is the damning or defaming part , categorizing it as 'subscribed' would do no forseeable future harm , in which the facts of the case would be based on.

How do we know that? How do we know he wasn't repeatedly put back on it by others?

[Argus]

I guess only for 'simply visiting', otherwise storing/copying/making/disturbing such images/animations should warrant prison term.

Why?

Recall that the law, as written, covers all manner of pictures, videos, illustrations, cartoons, paintings, computer animation, as well as written fiction. The 'child' depicted visually does not have to be under 18, but only "appear" to be under 18. And it doesn't even have to be a real person. A drawing, cartoon or computer animation done from the imagination are also child porn under the law. A naked picture of a sixteen year old taken BY that sixteen year old counts, as does a forty year old picture from a 1970s era child porn magazine.

Now you can find all the above to be disgusting or revolting. In fact, most people would. But that you are disgusted by something should not be enough to put a person in prison for long periods of time. The only allowance I make for laws inhibiting freedom are demonstrated harm. The problem here is that no one, in creating the original child porn bill, nor its numerous additions, ever bothered to do any studies or provide any supporting evidence of the harm caused by an individual viewing all of the above.

Note. I said ALL of the above, not SOME of the above. You can, at least, make the case, that a young person will be continually exploited by some guy viewing their pictures even years after the fact. But I fail to see how you can make that sort of argument for some guy looking at computer animations or written fiction...

[jacee]

I expect it's all considered in sentencing.

[Bryan]

I'm surprised by the outrage against Flanagan in this case. It's nothing he hasn't said before, and he's definitely said far more controversial things.

It seems to me in this case, that people are equating something to his statements that he didn't actually say, while ignoring that he all he did was express the opinion that the commission of a crime is far more serious than having seen the evidence of it.

[waldo]

Argus... know when to fold em!

That would be when I'm shown to be wrong about something.

.

you've been very diligent in attempting to answer every post directed your way - you appear to have missed the following:

.

interpretations of that quote take differing paths - I've not read many that actually attempt to claim the, 'preference or liking for pictures of naked children... is victimless'.

.

in any case, my "fold em" suggestion to you was in line with the updated official statement from Mr. Flanagan (which I also quoted) - to me, you appear to be arguing a position that can't be supported within that updated official statement. That is to say, your position is now... your position, and not one you're advocating for on the behalf of another.

[waldo]

And so? I think most of the participants on this topic have only a threadbare awareness of the law, or of the makeup of child porn. For that matter, most people who talk about child porn can hardly hide their revulsion of those who are interested in viewing this type of material And I think the law mirrors that disgust and moral indignation in pedophiles.

The thing is, pedophiles didn't ask to be the way they are. Any more than schizophrenics did. So I find it hard to bring forth the proper degree of moral indignation for them lusting after children when, let's face it, they can't help it. It's not like it's a decision or choice of anyone involved. Thus my assessment of them, and the law, is, I think more logical than that of most of the emotional types who can't get over their disgust.

.

except... the words chosen specifically addressed personal liberty versus jail time, for actions that, "do not harm another person". Now, there's been a follow-up admission that these were, "badly chosen words". In that context, if you are now personally advocating for pedophilia to be strictly addressed as an illness, rather than criminalized, then that is an entirely different discussion/argument.

[scribblet]

I'm surprised by the outrage against Flanagan in this case. It's nothing he hasn't said before, and he's definitely said far more controversial things.

It seems to me in this case, that people are equating something to his statements that he didn't actually say, while ignoring that he all he did was express the opinion that the commission of a crime is far more serious than having seen the evidence of it.

I'm inclined to think that way also but the very nature of the subject is enough for him to be thrown under the bus, no matter what. I think anyone trying to defend his comments will also be thrown to the sharks.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/remarks-on-child-porn-defended-by-academics-194456071.html

[Argus]

I expect it's all considered in sentencing.

Expectation is not acceptable. You do not, or should not create a law which will put people in prison for doing something unless you can demonstrate how their action harms others. Offends others should not be sufficient. If you write a fictitious porn story which features an underage person, or create a pornographic (underage) image through computer graphics... who exactly are you harming?

Bear in mind that, as I have stated earlier, numerous organizations, mostly religious and conservative, though some arch feminist, have spent decades trying to show porn causes antisocial behavior, and have never succeeded.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

.

you've been very diligent in attempting to answer every post directed your way - you appear to have missed the following:

.interpretations of that quote take differing paths - I've not read many

that actually attempt to claim the, 'preference or liking for pictures

of naked children... is victimless'.

Not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting the 'preference or liking' itself causes victims? If you could posit how someone's 'liking' for naked pictures of children harms anyone you might have a case for imprisoning all pedophiles, but I see no supporting evidence. And that would mean locking people up for what was in their minds, which would set a startling new precedent...

.

in any case, my "fold em" suggestion to you was in line with the updated official statement from Mr. Flanagan (which I also quoted) - to me, you appear to be arguing a position that can't be supported within that updated official statement. That is to say, your position is now... your position, and not one you're advocating for on the behalf of another.

Flanagan, under a torrent of abuse, deunciations, firings, and and shunning has done a total apology and mea culpa. Yes. I recognize this. I also recognize that there is no way he could engage in any kind of contextual debate or discussion at this time around this issue, perhaps never. And I am not so much advocating for Flanagan as I am against the attack on someone who dared to express an opinion contrary to the societal norm. I have always been against laws or acts limiting freedom of speech or expression absent demonstrated harm.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

.

except... the words chosen specifically addressed personal liberty versus jail time, for actions that, "do not harm another person". Now, there's been a follow-up admission that these were, "badly chosen words". In that context, if you are now personally advocating for pedophilia to be strictly addressed as an illness, rather than criminalized, then that is an entirely different discussion/argument.

I think that the sexual urge is among the strongest humans have. Few would likely disagree. Pedophiles thus have the same urges as anyone else, but doing anything to satisfy their urges, be it looking at pictures, or actively seeking to have sex with children, is criminalized. Most thoughtful people ought to feel a degree of sympathy for their plight.

As to how I would handle them. Any action that harms children has to be stopped. Direct actions, as in molesting children, should be criminalized. Creating, selling, distributing child porn should also be criminalized. I am not in favor of prison for possessing it. I would rather have mandatory psychiatric treatment and therapy for those found to be possessing "actual" child porn.

I would, however, divide up the present types of child porn according to my notion of their seriousness. What I call "actual" child porn is the kind the authorities like to trot out whenever they want to scare parents. That is, pictures and videos of the sexual abuse of children. This, as far as I'm aware, makes up a very small percentage of what Canada defines as child porn. The biggest part would be better labelled 'underage porn' and is generally self-created by teenagers. While it should not be distributed or sold, and could be seized if found anywhere, I would not imprison people for possessing it. Simple nude pictures that are not overtly sexual in context should be treated similarly. The same goes for artificially created images. I am against any action against written stories which are fictional in nature.

[cybercoma]

I think the images would be made, even if there were no demand for them; I suspect whomever produces it does so for their own enjoyment first, that of others second. There seems to be no monetary gain to be got from it; images are swapped or merely downloaded for free, as far as I can tell from what I've read in the news. Regardless, just because it's made doesn't mean it has to be looked at; so, yes, doing so remains a reprehensible act. The question is: how is that reprehension best expressed?

I get your point. Although, downloading and viewing the pictures reproduces them, which in some ways could be argued as a way of re-victimizing the child. I understand the libertarian viewpoint that observing child porn is not the same thing as creating it and perhaps we shouldn't violate people's liberties for this crime. I just don't agree with it. I believe that viewing it creates a market for it, whether there is money exchanged or not. The market, in my opinion, encourages the exploitation, despite there being some people who would make it regardless. So the reproduction of the material, through downloading it, and the creation of a market for that material are two things that I believe should be punishable. The fact that children are classified as a vulnerable group aggravates the crime. Edited March 2, 2013 by cybercoma

[hitops]

Just a quick note. For those trying to tie this to Harper or the CPC in some way, maybe you did not read the actual full contextual quote. Immediately before his wrong statement, Flannigan specifically identified the issue as one he disagreed with the CPC on. He specifically identified the conservatives as having a 'jihad' against pornographers, and that he felt they were wrong in that regard.

True however, that Harper has more than his fill of appointed clowns recently.

[jacee]

The defense lawyers can argue the perps angles.

Harm to the victims is what the law is about.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/remarks-on-child-porn-defended-by-academics-194456071.html?device=mobile

"Where he gets into real difficulty is saying there are no victims here. To say that we can't treat consumers of pornography the same as the producers of it, that's a debate I think we can have. But to say that it's victimless -- that's a bit tough to stomach."

And Flanagan crossed the line right here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mobileweb/2013/02/28/tom-flanagan-child-porn_n_2780550.html

It is a real issue of personal liberty,to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person."

[TimG]

There is a clear parallel to illegal downloading in that:

1) There are victims (artists who are not compensated for their work)

2) There is a distinction between actors (distributors of illegal content) and consumers (downloaders of illegal content)

Some would argue that anyone who knowingly downloads illegal content is guilty of a crime.

Others claim that since the content is already available no harm is done.

The situation is identical other than the fact that harm done by child porn is much greater than harm done by the loss of compensation for a work. I am not convinced the greater harm is enough to justify completely opposition positions on what is basically the same action.

[Bryan]

Viewing the picture doesn't harm the victim in any tangible way though. We're talking about photos and videos, not time machines.

[Peanutbutter]

Viewing the picture doesn't harm the victim in any tangible way though. We're talking about photos and videos, not time machines.

The harm has already been done making the picture. A child has been raped and by viewing the picture or video of the incident you're only perpetuating further child rape.

[jacee]

Viewing the picture doesn't harm the victim in any tangible way though. We're talking about photos and videos, not time machines.

NO!!

Every viewer contributes to the market for child porn, resulting in more children abused to meet 'market demand'.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/01/ton_flanagan_puts_personal_liberty_ahead_of_victims_pain_mallick.html

Flanagan is saying that watching child porn is a passive crime. Police worldwide say with all the passion they can muster that its not. Online porn exists because there is a market for it. If pedophiles didnt watch child rape and often pay for the privilege, there wouldnt be a huge online porn-sharing network. Children are mutilated, psychologically and physically, for strangers pleasure.

...

In 1998, when the FBI began tracking online child porn, Bazelon reported, they found one particular case, photos of a little girl with emails like this: do me a favor . . . take a pic of her in nothing but stockings pulled down below her (genitals.) The photographer obliged.

The FBI traced the photographer to a small-town home and recognized the basement room where the photos were taken. But where was the little girl? The FBI agent saw her, playing in the yard across the street. It something Ill never forget, he told Bazelon.

Edited March 2, 2013 by jacee

[g_bambino]

Every viewer contributes to the market for child porn, resulting in more children abused to meet 'market demand'.

What market? There's no money to be made off the images. The people who make them are documenting their own actions, which they'd want to engage in, even if there were no audience. The frequency of sexual abuse of children would barely diminish if the audience for depictions of it disappeared.

[jacee]

What market? There's no money to be made off the images. The people who make them are documenting their own actions, which they'd want to engage in, even if there were no audience. The frequency of sexual abuse of children would barely diminish if the audience for depictions of it disappeared.

You are wrong.

And disgusting.

[waldo]

What market? There's no money to be made off the images. The people who make them are documenting their own actions, which they'd want to engage in, even if there were no audience. The frequency of sexual abuse of children would barely diminish if the audience for depictions of it disappeared.

suggest you run a googly on 'deep web'

and just a couple of top hits from a googly on recent pedo rings busted:

Massive online pedophile ring busted by cops

Hundreds Arrested in International Child Pornography Sting

[hitops]

Viewing the picture doesn't harm the victim in any tangible way though. We're talking about photos and videos, not time machines.

Could not be more untrue. It fosters demand for the product, leading to increased production of the product and further victimization. It is also well-known that it is almost impossible for victims to recover when they know people are continuing to view their abuse day after day. Mentally for them its like being re-victimized again and again. Imagine somebody raped you. Other people actually love watching you get raped, and even though the pain has gone away, how do you feel knowing many people are still getting pleasure from watching your pain on an ongoing basis?

What market? There's no money to be made off the images. The people who make them are documenting their own actions, which they'd want to engage in, even if there were no audience. The frequency of sexual abuse of children would barely diminish if the audience for depictions of it disappeared.

A market does not only need to refer to finances. For example, politicians trade in the market of self-importance all the time. Regardless of money, the demand for the pictures is there, and therefore that will encourage further production of them.

Edited March 3, 2013 by hitops

[g_bambino]

You are wrong.

And disgusting.

You are void of thought.

[g_bambino]

[J]ust a couple of top hits from a googly on recent pedo rings busted

Regardless of money, the demand for the pictures is there, and therefore that will encourage further production of them.

None of this changes my point: the people making the images are, for the very most part, as far as I understand it, participants in the acts being documented and they are going to want and try to participate in those acts whether or not there's a demand for the images. To the producers of the porn, the images are secondary to the act being imaged, not the other way around.