Canada & US co-operate to smash online child porn ring

[Argus]

Just because there aren't many pornographers or paedophiles watching it, doesn't mean it should be less illegal...

Why can't we simply draw the line at nude photos of minors being traded = illegal?

It depends on what kind of line you're talking about.

I have no objection to banning underage porn. I have a problem with putting people in prison for looking at it. I take into account that paedophiles have a psychiatric illness, and that the human sex drive is a very powerful motivator. It must be pretty tough to be drawn to children, rather than to adults, and pretty tough to resist that urge. If all they do is fantasise and look at pictures on the internet, well, I have a hard time saying they should be locked up forever for that.

Then there's the fact that a lot more than paedophiles are drawn to beautiful young teenage girls. Do you think the human instinct can turn a man's sex drive on or off depending on whether the girl he see is 18 or 17? And how can you tell anyway? I know a couple of pretty girls who are 25 but who could easily pass for under 18 in the right clothes. I don't know many younger girls, but I do know the reverse is also true. Suppose you download pictures of a lovely girl you think is 21 and she turns out to be 17? I brought up Tracy Lords before for a reason; It's a famous case where a 15 year old girl looked so mature that she became the centrefold in Penthouse and made mainstream X-rated videos, dozens of them, without anyone knowing. Should everyone who looks at such videos and pictures go to prison because they didn't know? No, it's all too arbitrary and there is too much room for gross injustice.

Besides, nude photos is not where the line is drawn. The line is drawn around anything that concerns people under 18 involved in any kind of nudity or sexual activity, and includes fictional stories, diary entries, art works, digital animation and drawings.

[geoffrey]

If you put it that way, I think you've got valid concerns.

But you have fallen into one dangerous trap I want to hear more about... if anyone mentally ill shouldn't go to jail, if these paedophiles abuse kids then they should still just go to a mental health institution or something of that nature?

I don't think I like that.

The accidential posesesion idea is also dangerous, for that example, and probably many others. Good point.

[FTA Lawyer]

Just because there aren't many pornographers or paedophiles watching it, doesn't mean it should be less illegal...

Why can't we simply draw the line at nude photos of minors being traded = illegal?

It depends on what kind of line you're talking about.

I have no objection to banning underage porn. I have a problem with putting people in prison for looking at it. I take into account that paedophiles have a psychiatric illness, and that the human sex drive is a very powerful motivator. It must be pretty tough to be drawn to children, rather than to adults, and pretty tough to resist that urge. If all they do is fantasise and look at pictures on the internet, well, I have a hard time saying they should be locked up forever for that.

Then there's the fact that a lot more than paedophiles are drawn to beautiful young teenage girls. Do you think the human instinct can turn a man's sex drive on or off depending on whether the girl he see is 18 or 17? And how can you tell anyway? I know a couple of pretty girls who are 25 but who could easily pass for under 18 in the right clothes. I don't know many younger girls, but I do know the reverse is also true. Suppose you download pictures of a lovely girl you think is 21 and she turns out to be 17? I brought up Tracy Lords before for a reason; It's a famous case where a 15 year old girl looked so mature that she became the centrefold in Penthouse and made mainstream X-rated videos, dozens of them, without anyone knowing. Should everyone who looks at such videos and pictures go to prison because they didn't know? No, it's all too arbitrary and there is too much room for gross injustice.

Besides, nude photos is not where the line is drawn. The line is drawn around anything that concerns people under 18 involved in any kind of nudity or sexual activity, and includes fictional stories, diary entries, art works, digital animation and drawings.

I'm sorry if I'm appearing argumentative here, but I can't let you off the hook as Geoffrey has just done. You are changing what you are talking about from one post to the next in terms of where the lines are actually drawn and where you think they ought to be drawn.

You're point is well taken that you do not accept that there is sufficient proof of harm to children to justify the fact that it is a criminal offence for anyone to merely possess (including downloading from the internet) images of child pornography. I accept that there is enough evidence, but that's fine, we need not agree (and we're hardly the only people who don't see eye to eye on this point).

However, many of the other points you are making are simply inaccurate and misleading...and no, I don't think it is just "picking nits"...if you want to speak authoritatively, then be correct, please.

Possession of child pornography of up to a thousand images or so, by a person diagnosed as a paedophile, in the redneck province of Alberta will net you a jail sentence of 12-24 months give or take, depending on other factors specific to each case...not "locked up forever" as you carelessly suggest above. In fact, the maximum sentence for straight possession or for simply accessing (looking at but not downloading) is 5 years. The maximum only goes up to 10 years for making or distributing child pornography.

As far as where the lines are drawn (actually where they are drawn), the Canadian law regarding child porn sets out that it is illegal to possess:

1. photos, film, videos and other visual representations that show a person who is or is depicted as under 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity;

2. visual representations that feature, as a dominant characteristic, the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region of a person who is or is depicted as under 18 for a sexual purpose; and

3. written or visual material that actively induces or encourages unlawful sexual activity with persons who are under 18.

UNLESS, the material described above has:

1. artistic merit;

2. an educational purpose;

3. a scientific purpose;

4. a medical purpose; or

5. the acts alleged to be unlawful were done in furtherance of the public good.

In any of these situations, there is no criminal offence.

FURTHERMORE, per the Sharpe case, there is also no criminal offence where the material described above:

1. is explicit material and was created by one person (i.e. with no one else being a participant) and held by the creator alone exclusively for personal use; or

2. is a visual recording created by or depicting that person, which does not depict unlawful sexual activity, and is created with the consent of all participants, and is held only for private use.

As far as your "accidental possession" scenario, all criminal offences require an element of criminal intent or mens rea (latin). In the case of possession of child porn, it is a complete defence if you subjectively believed that the person in the image was 18 and it was objectively reasonable for you to have that belief (that is, you can't get away with claiming you thought a 4 year old was 18, but you're in safe territory saying you thought Traci Lords was 18 when you were looking at her in Playboy).

The defence exists for making child porn as well, only it's a bit more narrow...that is, you have to actually demonstrate that you took all reasonable positive steps toward determining the age of the person before you use them to make porn (so there is more responsibility placed on someone who makes porn than someone who just possesses it).

So, now that we have the actual legal parameters of the legislation out in the open, perhaps Geoffrey won't be so quick to pat you on the back.

So long as you have no explicit sexual purpose, you're not guilty for taking photos of your child in the bath, you're not guilty for painting or sculpting a naked teen, you're not guilty for furthering science or doing a news report exposing child porn etc. etc.

Even where you do have an explicit sexual purpose, you're not guilty for writing horrible child-porn stories in your diary (but keeping them private), you're not guilty for videotaping any lawful sexual activity, so long as you have consent of all participants, and again, you keep it private (for example, you can video tape two consenting 14 year-olds in full sexual intercourse and use it to pleasure yourself to your heart's content...your only legal requirement is to keep it to yourself).

You're not guilty for mistakenly having a mature-looking Traci Lords spread when she was actually 15 at the time of the photos, you're not guilty...well you get my point (hopefully).

This law traps far fewer people and fact scenarios than you would like us to believe. I'm not saying your views are totally without merit, but you lack credibility in your criticisms when you paint a picture that is just not true.

FTA

[geoffrey]

Interesting FTA. I didn't know there had to be intent on all criminal acts, shows my ignorance of the law...

Anyways, I'm not buying the 'paedophiles aren't criminals' argument. I'd just be concerned if the law was attack people that wrote books, or in the situation of the accidental possession, like in that playboy case. Other than that, lock 'em up.

It seems to me the law is most interested in going after those trafficking the materials, not anyone that is accidentally coming across them per say. I'm pretty sure the police have the ability to distingish and I wouldn't be concerned about any civil liberties on the matter.

Thanks for the clarification FTA.

[Argus]

You're point is well taken that you do not accept that there is sufficient proof of harm to children to justify the fact that it is a criminal offence for anyone to merely possess (including downloading from the internet) images of child pornography. I accept that there is enough evidence, but that's fine, we need not agree (and we're hardly the only people who don't see eye to eye on this point).

You obviously have a bias on this point - as do most people. I am fairly neutral. I have examined the statements and logic on both sides, and found the lack of cohesive evidence on your side to be profoundly unconvincing. I am willing to be convinced, but you have done a very poor job of it. Your main cite turned out to be a better support of my side than yours.

as you carelessly suggest above. In fact, the maximum sentence for straight possession or for simply accessing (looking at but not downloading) is 5 years. The maximum only goes up to 10 years for making or distributing child pornography.

Gee, thanks FTL. I didn't know that.

On the other hand, I was responding to people who have said that these people ought to be locked up forever, or words to that affect.

As far as where the lines are drawn (actually where they are drawn), the Canadian law regarding child porn sets out that it is illegal to possess:

1. photos, film, videos and other visual representations that show a person who is or is depicted as under 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity;

Is - or is depicted to be. In other words, a 25 year old actress, for example (actually, I believe Jane March was only 17 in The Lover) or a cartoon, like manga, or a drawing or painting created from the imagination.

2. visual representations that feature, as a dominant characteristic, the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region of a person who is or is depicted as under 18 for a sexual purpose; and

Which means you get to try and interpret what "a dominant characteristic" might mean, and match it against what a judge might decide. In a US case, a judge decided that even though the subject of a photo was fully clothed, it still qualified under a smiliar definition.

3. written or visual material that actively induces or encourages unlawful sexual activity with persons who are under 18.

You're a little out of date. Bill C2 amended this to include fictional descriptions of underage sex wether it advocates, encourages, induces or whatnot.

UNLESS, the material described above has:

1. artistic merit;

2. an educational purpose;

3. a scientific purpose;

4. a medical purpose; or

5. the acts alleged to be unlawful were done in furtherance of the public good.

In any of these situations, there is no criminal offence.

You're again out of date. I suggest you read bill C2.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada’s broad interpretation of the “artistic merit” defence in child pornography proceedings, Bill C-2 eliminates existing exemptions for material with “artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose,” leaving the statutory defence of a “legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art.” Bill C-2 further specifies that the material in question must not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of 18. Amendments also broaden the scope of the offence by eliminating the need to show that written materials advocate or counsel illegal sexual activity with children.

Which again is wide open to interpretation, as you now not only need to show that it serves a "legtimate purpose" related to say, art, but you also have to prove (that nasty old reverse onus thing) that it poses no "undue risk of harm" to anyone under 18. This is troubling on more than one level. After all, none of the advocates of ever harsher laws against child porn have ever proven that child porn (as opposed to child molestation) causes harm to anyone under 18 in the first place. So the standard is pretty low on that side of the fence, making the standard to disprove what is essentially emotionalism, extremely high.

The Lover was a very nice movie. It seems to me, however, that anyone who owns a copy risks being thrown in prison for posession of child pornography. Do you disagree? What about Blame it on Rio, which featured another 17 year old actress, also at least partly nude through much of the movie? For that matter, if you add in the "or is depicted to be under 18" all sorts of movies can be included, even though they feature actors over 18 playing people under 18. Can you really describe Porkys as serving "a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art"? Can you prove it does not pose an undue risk of harm to teenagers? (what is a due risk anyway?). It was a crass teenage summer sex comedy, like a zillion others, with lots of naked "teenagers" fooling around.

As far as your "accidental possession" scenario, all criminal offences require an element of criminal intent or mens rea (latin).

How about "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

We all know there have been numerous exceptions to that rule, and that people have been convicted of violating all sorts of rules and laws they didn't know they were violating. This is especially bad when we're dealing with such a broad law which is so open to interpretation on so many levels. You didn't think you were breaking the law because you thought your paintings were art. The judge disagrees. Or maybe he agrees but decides it poses an "undue risk of harm" whatever that means.

In the case of possession of child porn, it is a complete defence if you subjectively believed that the person in the image was 18 and it was objectively reasonable for you to have that belief (that is, you can't get away with claiming you thought a 4 year old was 18, but you're in safe territory saying you thought Traci Lords was 18 when you were looking at her in Playboy).

Ah, it's all so simple, isn't it? Why, after you've been charged with posession of child porn, your posessions taken away, your children taken off to be traumatized by repeated intrusive questions and interviews with poorly trained psychologists and counsellors and Crowns, your wife divorces you, you get fired from your job, and your home is firebombed by your neighbors, well then, a year and a half later, a judge will smile and say "not guilty" and everything will be all right again.

I take it you didn't read that last cite of mine, which described how british police marched into literally thousands of homes on the mistaken impression the men there had downloaded child porn, outright told everyone there that the father/husband was a paedophile, and carted away the children as evidence. Nor did you see where some dozens of men wound up commiting suicide, even though they were probably innocent.

.

So long as you have no explicit sexual purpose, you're not guilty for taking photos of your child in the bath,

I'm sure the Ottawa father arrested for doing just that, banned from his home, his children taken away by childrens aid society for interviews, his name dragged through the mud, will be relieved to hear that. A year or so later, but only after loud and repeated outbursts from the local media, the local crown finally, very grudgingly dropped the charges, but only on the basis he figured he couldn't get a conviction with a jury. And CAS never admitted any wrongdoing in taking away the children. It took some time, in fact, before he could get the order prohibiting him from seeing his kids alone or going back to live in his house lifted.

So go ahead everyone! Take naked pictures of your kids! They're cute, after all, and you'll probably get the charges dismissed - eventually, some day.

Your problem is that you're looking at punishment from an emotionless legal standpoint. I'm looking at things from a human standpoint. From a human standpoint even the mere accusation of having child porn can destroy ones life. That's something you don't appear to care much about.

There's another aspect to this, as well. As is stated by the CCLA position on bill C2 "If you have to look over your shoulder for engaging in legitimate activity, you are no longer enjoying a viable freedom of expression." Why should I have to look warily at my DVD collections or what porn I have on my computer for fear some cop might decide to charge me with being a paedpohile and child porn collector because I have, I dunno, The Lover or Blue Lagoon" - or Porkys, or in case I have a copy of Nabocov's Lolita, or I took videos or pictures of my kid in the bathtub?

And it's so unneccesary. You, like all the advocates, use the "baby harp seal" approach when defending the child porn law. Ie, even though we don't hunt cute little white seals, esp with clubs, they always pictures of them and old videos of them being clubbed to make their point. You used the 18 month old being abused on video, even though that sort of things is a miniscule proportion of what the child porn bill catches.

Why do you insist on defending a law which criminalises the posession of cartoons? Of drawings? Of fictional writing and fictional characters in movies? Of art works? None of these involve actual children.

In fact, even most of what does involve real children doesn't involve any trauma to them. According to cites I've already posted 68% of what is now described as "child pornography" does not involve any sexual contact between the model - naked or clothed, real or altered - and anyone. Only a tiny fraction of child porn actually involves what can be termed wholesale sexual abuse of minors, even less of prepubescent minors.

I guess the baby harp seal approach works better, right?

[FTA Lawyer]

You're point is well taken that you do not accept that there is sufficient proof of harm to children to justify the fact that it is a criminal offence for anyone to merely possess (including downloading from the internet) images of child pornography. I accept that there is enough evidence, but that's fine, we need not agree (and we're hardly the only people who don't see eye to eye on this point).

You obviously have a bias on this point - as do most people. I am fairly neutral. I have examined the statements and logic on both sides, and found the lack of cohesive evidence on your side to be profoundly unconvincing. I am willing to be convinced, but you have done a very poor job of it. Your main cite turned out to be a better support of my side than yours.

as you carelessly suggest above. In fact, the maximum sentence for straight possession or for simply accessing (looking at but not downloading) is 5 years. The maximum only goes up to 10 years for making or distributing child pornography.

Gee, thanks FTL. I didn't know that.

On the other hand, I was responding to people who have said that these people ought to be locked up forever, or words to that affect.

As far as where the lines are drawn (actually where they are drawn), the Canadian law regarding child porn sets out that it is illegal to possess:

1. photos, film, videos and other visual representations that show a person who is or is depicted as under 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity;

Is - or is depicted to be. In other words, a 25 year old actress, for example (actually, I believe Jane March was only 17 in The Lover) or a cartoon, like manga, or a drawing or painting created from the imagination.

2. visual representations that feature, as a dominant characteristic, the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region of a person who is or is depicted as under 18 for a sexual purpose; and

Which means you get to try and interpret what "a dominant characteristic" might mean, and match it against what a judge might decide. In a US case, a judge decided that even though the subject of a photo was fully clothed, it still qualified under a smiliar definition.

3. written or visual material that actively induces or encourages unlawful sexual activity with persons who are under 18.

You're a little out of date. Bill C2 amended this to include fictional descriptions of underage sex wether it advocates, encourages, induces or whatnot.

UNLESS, the material described above has:

1. artistic merit;

2. an educational purpose;

3. a scientific purpose;

4. a medical purpose; or

5. the acts alleged to be unlawful were done in furtherance of the public good.

In any of these situations, there is no criminal offence.

You're again out of date. I suggest you read bill C2.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada’s broad interpretation of the “artistic merit” defence in child pornography proceedings, Bill C-2 eliminates existing exemptions for material with “artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose,” leaving the statutory defence of a “legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art.” Bill C-2 further specifies that the material in question must not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of 18. Amendments also broaden the scope of the offence by eliminating the need to show that written materials advocate or counsel illegal sexual activity with children.

Which again is wide open to interpretation, as you now not only need to show that it serves a "legtimate purpose" related to say, art, but you also have to prove (that nasty old reverse onus thing) that it poses no "undue risk of harm" to anyone under 18. This is troubling on more than one level. After all, none of the advocates of ever harsher laws against child porn have ever proven that child porn (as opposed to child molestation) causes harm to anyone under 18 in the first place. So the standard is pretty low on that side of the fence, making the standard to disprove what is essentially emotionalism, extremely high.

The Lover was a very nice movie. It seems to me, however, that anyone who owns a copy risks being thrown in prison for posession of child pornography. Do you disagree? What about Blame it on Rio, which featured another 17 year old actress, also at least partly nude through much of the movie? For that matter, if you add in the "or is depicted to be under 18" all sorts of movies can be included, even though they feature actors over 18 playing people under 18. Can you really describe Porkys as serving "a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art"? Can you prove it does not pose an undue risk of harm to teenagers? (what is a due risk anyway?). It was a crass teenage summer sex comedy, like a zillion others, with lots of naked "teenagers" fooling around.

As far as your "accidental possession" scenario, all criminal offences require an element of criminal intent or mens rea (latin).

How about "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

We all know there have been numerous exceptions to that rule, and that people have been convicted of violating all sorts of rules and laws they didn't know they were violating. This is especially bad when we're dealing with such a broad law which is so open to interpretation on so many levels. You didn't think you were breaking the law because you thought your paintings were art. The judge disagrees. Or maybe he agrees but decides it poses an "undue risk of harm" whatever that means.

In the case of possession of child porn, it is a complete defence if you subjectively believed that the person in the image was 18 and it was objectively reasonable for you to have that belief (that is, you can't get away with claiming you thought a 4 year old was 18, but you're in safe territory saying you thought Traci Lords was 18 when you were looking at her in Playboy).

Ah, it's all so simple, isn't it? Why, after you've been charged with posession of child porn, your posessions taken away, your children taken off to be traumatized by repeated intrusive questions and interviews with poorly trained psychologists and counsellors and Crowns, your wife divorces you, you get fired from your job, and your home is firebombed by your neighbors, well then, a year and a half later, a judge will smile and say "not guilty" and everything will be all right again.

I take it you didn't read that last cite of mine, which described how british police marched into literally thousands of homes on the mistaken impression the men there had downloaded child porn, outright told everyone there that the father/husband was a paedophile, and carted away the children as evidence. Nor did you see where some dozens of men wound up commiting suicide, even though they were probably innocent.

.

So long as you have no explicit sexual purpose, you're not guilty for taking photos of your child in the bath,

I'm sure the Ottawa father arrested for doing just that, banned from his home, his children taken away by childrens aid society for interviews, his name dragged through the mud, will be relieved to hear that. A year or so later, but only after loud and repeated outbursts from the local media, the local crown finally, very grudgingly dropped the charges, but only on the basis he figured he couldn't get a conviction with a jury. And CAS never admitted any wrongdoing in taking away the children. It took some time, in fact, before he could get the order prohibiting him from seeing his kids alone or going back to live in his house lifted.

So go ahead everyone! Take naked pictures of your kids! They're cute, after all, and you'll probably get the charges dismissed - eventually, some day.

Your problem is that you're looking at punishment from an emotionless legal standpoint. I'm looking at things from a human standpoint. From a human standpoint even the mere accusation of having child porn can destroy ones life. That's something you don't appear to care much about.

There's another aspect to this, as well. As is stated by the CCLA position on bill C2 "If you have to look over your shoulder for engaging in legitimate activity, you are no longer enjoying a viable freedom of expression." Why should I have to look warily at my DVD collections or what porn I have on my computer for fear some cop might decide to charge me with being a paedpohile and child porn collector because I have, I dunno, The Lover or Blue Lagoon" - or Porkys, or in case I have a copy of Nabocov's Lolita, or I took videos or pictures of my kid in the bathtub?

And it's so unneccesary. You, like all the advocates, use the "baby harp seal" approach when defending the child porn law. Ie, even though we don't hunt cute little white seals, esp with clubs, they always pictures of them and old videos of them being clubbed to make their point. You used the 18 month old being abused on video, even though that sort of things is a miniscule proportion of what the child porn bill catches.

Why do you insist on defending a law which criminalises the posession of cartoons? Of drawings? Of fictional writing and fictional characters in movies? Of art works? None of these involve actual children.

In fact, even most of what does involve real children doesn't involve any trauma to them. According to cites I've already posted 68% of what is now described as "child pornography" does not involve any sexual contact between the model - naked or clothed, real or altered - and anyone. Only a tiny fraction of child porn actually involves what can be termed wholesale sexual abuse of minors, even less of prepubescent minors.

I guess the baby harp seal approach works better, right?

Okay, okay...

First of all, I do apologize for the misstep regarding Bill C2...I have a copy of it on my desk but hadn't followed the most current Orders in Council for proclomation dates of the various sections.

I have no cases of clients charged under the new provisions, and as criminal lawyers we often find ourselves trying matters under old versions of the Criminal Code (because it takes so long to get matters to trial).

Mistake made and admitted...it's the danger of trying to argue these issues without losing your real job in the process.

The real irony of the way this thread has developed is that I make my living making many of the arguments you are making in terms of civil liberties and protection of individuals from undue state intervention...some of the arguments I am most proud of making are in cases where people are unlawfully arrested or searched.

My law partner and I have been involved in a number of cases of alleged sexual assault and child pornography and have seen clients acquitted and yet destroyed by the allegations themselves...I am certainly not unaware of the "human" factor...it's what I deal with every day.

Undoubtedly the C2 amendments will be constitutionally challenged at some point, and we'll just have to wait and see what happens there, but the real point I guess I need to address is from your last paragraph:

Why do you insist on defending a law which criminalises the posession of cartoons? Of drawings? Of fictional writing and fictional characters in movies? Of art works? None of these involve actual children.

In fact, even most of what does involve real children doesn't involve any trauma to them. According to cites I've already posted 68% of what is now described as "child pornography" does not involve any sexual contact between the model - naked or clothed, real or altered - and anyone. Only a tiny fraction of child porn actually involves what can be termed wholesale sexual abuse of minors, even less of prepubescent minors.

What I defend is a law which strikes a balance between the protection of children on the one hand, and the protection of freedom of expression on the other. Unlike you, I am not able to dismiss the objectives of criminalizing possession of child porn on a belief that "only a tiny fraction" of such instances of possession can demonstrate a link to the actual or potential harm to children.

Perhaps I am not acting rationally because I am the father of two small children, and I am taking my stance in this biased context. However, in the course of my dealings with these types of cases as a lawyer, I have been forced to encounter instances such as the following description that I quote from one judge's decision:

A crying toddler is shown gagging on a man's sperm. A little girl is shown being mounted by a German Shepherd. Children are shown masturbating each other. Children are shown in bondage. An adult male is seen forcing his penis into a child's mouth, and then ejaculating in her mouth. The toddler is heard crying "No, No." Another picture shows the rape of a handcuffed and hooded child. Perhaps the most poignant scene, and one that will stay in my mind forever, is the image of an adult male ejaculating into the vagina of a child. The child has a soother in her mouth. I conclude the description of the representative material at this point.

Maybe some of your criticisms about the overbreadth of the law are valid, and perhaps the "slippery slope" needs to be monitored more closely than I have been suggesting, but I will repeat, over and over and over that I have no difficulty with a law that puts people in jail for merely possessing (or accessing on the internet) the type of material described above.

You will never convince me that the link between harm to children and possession of child porn does not exist...and maybe if you watched one of these videos of a toddler crying "No, No" while being raped, your perspective might change too (even in the absence of a controlled scientific experiment published in a reputable medical journal).

If our society is trying to stop people from making economic gain out of the exploitation of the desires and urges of paedophiles, then I am on board, even if the method we choose happens to place some restrictions on a person's right to express themselves.

Now, back to paying the bills...

FTA

[sharkman]

FTA lawyer, as someone who has occasionally scanned this thread, part of me can't help but wonder at why you bother to go to such lengths when it seems to be an exercise in futility. You could move the sun and moon for Argus and he still would want to defend child porn. I guess as a lawyer you have more stamina for this than I.

I wish I hadn't read those descriptions of child porn in your last post. They are disgusting beyond words and have no place on this forum. I feel sick and would ask that you fellows not include such rubbish in your posts.

[Argus]

And it's so unneccesary. You, like all the advocates, use the "baby harp seal" approach when defending the child porn law. Ie, even though we don't hunt cute little white seals, esp with clubs, they always pictures of them and old videos of them being clubbed to make their point. You used the 18 month old being abused on video, even though that sort of things is a miniscule proportion of what the child porn bill catches.

Why do you insist on defending a law which criminalises the posession of cartoons? Of drawings? Of fictional writing and fictional characters in movies? Of art works? None of these involve actual children.

In fact, even most of what does involve real children doesn't involve any trauma to them. According to cites I've already posted 68% of what is now described as "child pornography" does not involve any sexual contact between the model - naked or clothed, real or altered - and anyone. Only a tiny fraction of child porn actually involves what can be termed wholesale sexual abuse of minors, even less of prepubescent minors.

I guess the baby harp seal approach works better, right?

What I defend is a law which strikes a balance between the protection of children on the one hand, and the protection of freedom of expression on the other.

Then we strongly disagree about what the term "balance" means. My balance implies considerable logic, a demonstrable harm, and a stern neutrality.

Unlike you, I am not able to dismiss the objectives of criminalizing possession of child porn on a belief that "only a tiny fraction" of such instances of possession can demonstrate a link to the actual or potential harm to children.

I dismissed the objectives on the basis that no one, despite innumerable tries, has been able to demonstrate a cause and affect correlation between child porn and child abuse, and because the need for criminalizing all access and posession of sexual stories, cartoons, drawings, paintings, movies and yes, even real life child abuse has never been proven.

A crying toddler is shown gagging on a man's sperm.

Yes, yes, as I said above, use the baby seal attack. You want to ban a thouand things, just hold aloft the one that will make people get all emotional and they'll not bother to think about the rest. It's good argument, but really, really bad law making. And it works better than saying "Look, here is a picture of a man raping a baby girl! Let's put people in prison if they draw cartoons of teenagers having sex!"

People might go "Uh, what?

Maybe some of your criticisms about the overbreadth of the law are valid,

Oh, of course they are. That's why you have never challenged my examples. Nor have you responded to my specific points. Ie, would "The Lover", a Hollywood "A" movie, be classfied as child pornography. You know damned well the law spreads its net, far, far wider than it needs to to capture videos of men raping babies.

and perhaps the "slippery slope" needs to be monitored more closely than I have been suggesting, but I will repeat, over and over and over that I have no difficulty with a law that puts people in jail for merely possessing (or accessing on the internet) the type of material described above.

And if it also puts people in jail for posessing a ten year old video of "The Lover" well, tough noogies, right?

You will never convince me that the link between harm to children and possession of child porn does not exist...

Despite a lack of evidence. Yes, I can see that. Tell me, do you believe that adult pornography causes violence and sexual assaults against women?

If our society is trying to stop people from making economic gain out of the exploitation of the desires and urges of paedophiles,

Nonsense. As I have already demonstrated the vast majority of child porn is decades old, and as the government has admitted virtually all porn presently being produced is a mere byproduct of child molestation. You can do away with all video cameras in the world if you wish but that won't stop children being molested.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I don't favor child porn.

But I do have to admit that in general our puritan society is obsessed with talking about sex crimes to a strange degree.

Some kind of repression going on here?

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA lawyer, as someone who has occasionally scanned this thread, part of me can't help but wonder at why you bother to go to such lengths when it seems to be an exercise in futility. You could move the sun and moon for Argus and he still would want to defend child porn. I guess as a lawyer you have more stamina for this than I.

I wish I hadn't read those descriptions of child porn in your last post. They are disgusting beyond words and have no place on this forum. I feel sick and would ask that you fellows not include such rubbish in your posts.

sharkman,

My apologies for the offensive nature of what was in my last post...however, I don't believe that the content offends the rules of the forum and it was certainly not done in a gratuitous or needless manner.

The quote I included comes from a judgment of the Manitoba Provincial Court in R v. Hardy, [2002] M.J. No. 238 (sorry, I don't have an active link to post here). This quote is from one of 13 Canadian cases from 2001 to 2005 that I dealt with in my recent argument to the Alberta Court of Appeal. The quote demonstrates much of what I have been attempting to argue on this thread in response to Argus' repeated assertions that mere possession of child pornography in no way harms children. The members of the forum can draw their own conclusions having read my post...I suspect you have.

I guess, in my view, one (Argus) ought not be able to argue in the abstract as an idealistic defender of civil liberties and freedom of expression without some glimpse of the reality of what is being argued in support of.

If I am wrong in my assessment, then I invite Greg to delete my post and he will not hear any complaining from me.

As far as your first comment, I will agree that there appears to have been little progression in the substance of the thread over the last few exchanges between myself and Argus, and so I am prepared to cease and desist. As an eventuality of any thread, they run out of legs, and this one appears to have hit that point.

FTA

[sharkman]

Fair enough FTA lawyer, I suppose revealing some of what child porn has become in the hope of helping Argus and others to understand its depravity is a worthy goal. I was somewhat shocked at the time, but it has only strengthened my convictions in this matter. I still bemoan the fact that these crimes get so little in the way of punishment. I hope this case sets a new trend.

[Argus]

Fair enough FTA lawyer, I suppose revealing some of what child porn has become in the hope of helping Argus and others to understand its depravity is a worthy goal.

I don't think FTA had any illusions about my knowledge of what constituted child porn. His actual aim was to turn the discussion away from logic and onto a more emotional appeal to follow his slash and burn style of censorship.

I was somewhat shocked at the time, but it has only strengthened my convictions in this matter. I still bemoan the fact that these crimes get so little in the way of punishment. I hope this case sets a new trend.

Maybe we could execute anyone who looks at a picture of a 17 year old in a bikini and thinks she's attractive. What do you think, should we hold nationwide testing and weed out this horrible danger to our children?