PDA

View Full Version : kiddie porn


galen
01-27-2001, 09:19 AM
I just read a brief piece in the paper about a guy (in the US, this is) who was sentenced to prison for having child pornography on his computer. I'm wondering about how these laws have passed muster with the courts. I'm not talking about production and distribution here. I'm talking about possession. If the courts have ruled that kiddie porn is so repulsive and socially destructive that the first ammendment no longer applies, what prevents the courts from ruling that possession of pornography in general or certain religeous or political content can be prohibited, as is the case in some countries? It seems to me that this is a mighty slippery slope.

DougC
01-27-2001, 09:49 AM
- - - You silly! Just because the government does something doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional. It has to do mostly with public opinion, those publics being firstly the one that occupies the supreme court seats, and (rarely) secondly the one that loafs around in Congress. - MC

elmwood
01-27-2001, 10:50 AM
Let's say that I'm surfing the Web, and a site disguised as something worthwhile in the search engines is instead a kiddie porn site. I hut the [back] button as quickly as possible, but there's still an "inappropriate" picture in the cache. Guilty?

Iguana Boy
01-27-2001, 11:21 AM
In Scots Law Possession = Knowledge and Control.

If a kiddie porn picture is on your hard drive but is inaccesible to you (without recovery software) you are not legally 'in possession' of it.

As a criminal prosecutor who has a basic understanding of the internet (and there are not that many of us, I'm afraid) I would not be prosecuting someone for one or two stray pictures, unless there was an indication of intent, as I understand how easy it is to find yourself at a porn site without warning. I can't say how many pictures would be the cut-off point, that would depend on the circumstances. How they were saved would be important indicator of intent. Obviously even one or two pictures in a folder labelled "Kiddies" would indicate something more than 'innocent' possession.

If recovery software revealed that a person had downloaded many kiddie porn pioctures and then deleted them from his memory so that they were inaccessable to him, then we hit a problem. Obviously we have passed the stage of innocently stumbling onto a website, but the pictures are no longer within his control and therefore not in his possession.

This is still a growing area of criminal law and has far to go yet.

sethdallob
01-27-2001, 12:51 PM
Here's an interesting article related to the slippery slope theory:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/520611.asp?0nm=-23C

SuaSponte
01-27-2001, 01:00 PM
Whatever, MC. :rolleyes:

Let me parse out for yas why possession of kiddie porn is (constitutionally) illegal.

1. The moment of harm is when the photographer poses the child. The child is either being manipulated or coerced into sexual behavior at a young age, which is criminal abuse or molestation, or is being forced or manipulated into having sex, which is statutory rape.

2. Because it is this action that causes the harm, the First Amendment never even comes into play.

3. To possess the kiddie porn is to pay for the above crimes being committed, and to create market demand for the above crimes to be committed.

IOW, possession of kiddie porn is a crime for the same reason possession of untaxed liquor is a crime.

Sua

DougC
01-27-2001, 01:43 PM
- - - Um, Sue, the US fed gov't does lots of things not specified in the constitution.
--Secondly, the internet reaches many places, some of which laws concerning child poronography are rather loosely inforced, or lacking.
---Thirdly, the gov't doesn't tax kiddie porn, so it's not like that at all: that would involve a rationalization of lost tax revenue, which they don't bother using. Arguments against child pornography tend to focus on the emotional aspects of it, rather than any technical reason it can be included with anything else already illegal for other reasons. That it is illegal is a matter of regional public opinion, as I said. It's not that way everywhere, and it wasn't always that way in the US, either.
~
-All that said, one or two images might be enough for them to arrest you, but most newspaper stories about the guys they usually bust for child porn have hundreds or thousands if images on their computers, not just one or two. - MC

Arjuna34
01-27-2001, 01:55 PM
I don't think SuaSponte mean that kiddie porn was illegal due to tax reasons. If I read it correctly, the analogy was that possession of kiddie porn and untaxed liquor are both illegal for the same reason- because they both imply the creation of kiddie porn and untaxed liquor, both of which are illegal.

As SuaSponte said, the main beef against kiddie porn is the harm done to the child in the creation of it.

According to this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/22/scotus.childporn.sc.ap/index.html), the US Supreme Court is deciding whether possession of child pornography that was create without the use of children is illegal.

Arjuna34

socpro69
01-27-2001, 02:06 PM
The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled on a big B.C. kiddie porn case in which the existing law was challenged. The ruling focuses more on stopping the dissemination of materials rather than their creation. In the interests of freedom of expression the court allowed for two exceptions:

1. A person may create their own material (i.e. drawings or stories) on their own so long as they do not distribute it.

2. A person may be in possession of materials for the purpose of pornography so long as they do not depict any unlawful sexual activity.

I always get a bit uncomfortable when the government regulates anybody's ideas. I mean, there are already laws which forbid making pornography with minors and it's not as if this actually addresses pedophiles in terms of their interaction with kids. It's a tough issue and one which will probably never be addressed entirely rationally. It's just too political. You're simply not going to see a meaningful dialogue on a topic where good and bad are so obvious. Well, unless the pedophile lobby has more clout than I have been led to believe...

beergeek279
01-27-2001, 02:34 PM
I always get a bit uncomfortable when the government regulates anybody's ideas. I mean, there are already laws which forbid making pornography with minors and it's not as if this actually addresses pedophiles in terms of their interaction with kids. It's a tough issue and one which will probably never be addressed entirely rationally. It's just too political. You're simply not going to see a meaningful dialogue on a topic where good and bad are so obvious. Well, unless the pedophile lobby has more clout than I have been led to believe...

That certainly seems like a rather reasonable idea.

According to this CNN article, the US Supreme Court is deciding whether possession of child pornography that was create without the use of children is illegal.

ie, using (documented....exceptionally important for their sakes!) 18 year old girls that look like 14 year olds in kiddie porn-like situations. I certainly can't see a problem with this as these girls ARE 18, and let's face it, a lot of guys have a thing for teenage girls (hence the popularity of 18 year old sites on the Web)!!!!!

yabob
01-27-2001, 02:43 PM
And to muddy the water even more, there is the issue of simple nudity vs. pornography. When emotions come into play, nobody seems to be able to make the distinction, leading to things like the recently publicized case of the woman who had been snapping hundreds upon hundreds of pictures of her daughter getting turned in by the photo-developing place when she included snaps of the daughter in the shower. It probably eventually got thrown out, but was undoubtedly a HUGE hassle for the woman.

In addition to family photographs, we've got nudist publications and art photographers like David Hamilton and Jock Sturges who are continually getting in hot water.

I suppose you can argue that whatever the material's original intent, it has a high probability of being used for erotic turnons by pedophiles if made publically available, thus contributing to the "market" for kiddie porn, even if no overtly sexual acts involving a child are depicted. I would not choose to defend that argument.

dublos
01-27-2001, 02:45 PM
SuaSponte


1. The moment of harm is when the photographer poses the child. The child is either being manipulated or coerced into sexual behavior at a young age, which is criminal abuse or molestation, or is being forced or manipulated into having sex, which is statutory rape.


What about a underage girl with a webcam, who choses to take pictures of herself naked or in sexual poses? Or takes pictures of herself with her equally underage boyfriend or girlfriend?

No one's asking her to take them, but of course society has informed her that pictures of naked women attract men. so a level of manipulation or coercion can be considered to be present, even if there's no single person doing so.

Yet of course, that's still child pornography, and if she sends them to an adult, that person could be charged, as could, I assume her parents if the pictures were discovered on her computer.

Hadn't thought about that aspect of it, but that's going to add an interesting twist to the debate in coming years.

-Doug

MaynardJK
01-27-2001, 02:53 PM
To yabob: Yeah but you could also argue that even though WATER is used to provide life and liquids to people, it is still used sometimes to get people high(ie:drink twenty gallons of water to screw up your body) so it should be illegal to have water. A steak knife is used to cut meat of dead animals but some people use knives to kill people; Ban knives. Money is used to buy Legal items but some people buy illegal substances; ban money. etc..........


------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid ideas desrve stupid responses.

Chronos
01-27-2001, 03:05 PM
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this discussion is already a debate, and it's going to become more so? No? Good, 'cause I'm moving it to GD.

MaynardJK
01-27-2001, 03:09 PM
To Yabob: I didn't mean to attack you. I was attacking the idea. You were just the punching bag.

So that's where this went.

SPOOFE
01-27-2001, 04:00 PM
Just to clarify one point...

If a kiddie porn picture is on your hard drive but is inaccesible to you (without recovery software) you are not legally 'in possession' of it.

Look in your "Windows" directory (if you use Windows) and look for a "Temporary Internet Files" folder. If you mistakenly go to a Kiddie Porn site, you'll most likely find the pictures in there. Just wanted to bring up the other "Accidental Possession" possibility.

Anyway...

What about a underage girl with a webcam, who choses to take pictures of herself naked or in sexual poses? Or takes pictures of herself with her equally underage boyfriend or girlfriend?

That seems slightly related to this... what if a girl's underage, but she LOOKS older, and SAYS she's older? What if she meets a guy in a chat room and she starts sending him pictures? Is he still guilty of possessing child porn if he thought he was looking at pictures of an 18-year-old girl?

SuaSponte
01-27-2001, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by MC
[B][QUOTE] - - - Um, Sue, the US fed gov't does lots of things not specified in the constitution.
1. It's Sua. I'm male (you should see the looks of shock at Dopefests :D).

2. True, but that doesn't mean those actions are unconsitutional. The language of the Constitution is deliberately general, to take into account changing circumstances. For one example, nowhere in the Constitution are airplanes mentioned. However, government regulation of the airline industry is constitutional under the provisions of the Constitution that govern interstate and international commerce and travel.

In any event, this wasn't the point of your original statement:
- - - You silly! Just because the government does something doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional. It has to do mostly with public opinion, those publics being firstly the one that occupies the supreme court seats, and (rarely) secondly the one that loafs around in Congress.
Your implication was that the prohibitions on kiddie porn are in fact unconstitutional, but the laws stay in place because because popular opinion wants kiddie porn illegal.
This is untrue for two reasons: (1) the illegal conduct in kidding porn is the act of filming the child, not the dessemination of the idea of kids having sex; and (2) given the strong civil liberties thrust to American law, I doubt that public opinion is relevant. We allow Nazis to march, fer chrissakes - I'm not sure how much more unpopular an idea you could find.

--Secondly, the internet reaches many places, some of which laws concerning child poronography are rather loosely inforced, or lacking.
The person who received it over the internet in a foreign country is not going to be prosecuted by U.S. authorities, obviously. It is outside of their jurisdiction. Not sure how this is relevant to a discussion of U.S. kiddie porn law.
---Thirdly, the gov't doesn't tax kiddie porn, so it's not like that at all: that would involve a rationalization of lost tax revenue, which they don't bother using.
Arjuna34 was right on point. The purpose of the analogy is that the buyer of untaxed liquor isn't the person who owed the tax in the first place. However, his/her possession of the untaxed liquor is illegal because he/she is rewarding an illegal act/creating a market pressure for more of the crime to be committed.

Arguments against child pornography tend to focus on the emotional aspects of it, rather than any technical reason it can be included with anything else already illegal for other reasons. That it is illegal is a matter of regional public opinion, as I said. It's not that way everywhere, and it wasn't always that way in the US, either.
Obscenity is a matter of regional public opinion (or "community standards"), not kiddie porn. Kiddie porn is illegal everywhere in the U.S.
As for your "emotional aspects", personally, I'm not arguing this from an emotional POV, but a legal POV. The legal issue is the injury caused to the child.
As for your assertion that kiddie porn was ever legal in the U.S., cite please. To my knowledge, before the enactment of specific kiddie porn laws, kiddie porn was covered by other morality laws. They usually weren't constitutional, but they did criminalize kiddie porn.

-All that said, one or two images might be enough for them to arrest you, but most newspaper stories about the guys they usually bust for child porn have hundreds or thousands if images on their computers, not just one or two.
What's this mean? Are you arguing that the possessor of thousands of images should be arrested, but not the possessor or one or two. If so, please explain.

Sua

SuaSponte
01-27-2001, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by dublos
What about a underage girl with a webcam, who choses to take pictures of herself naked or in sexual poses? Or takes pictures of herself with her equally underage boyfriend or girlfriend?

Very interesting question. I believe the rationale for criminalizing possession of this type of kiddie porn is twofold. First, even with direct coercion, etc., the child is still suffering psychological harm by developing a warped view of sexuality. The possessor is encouraging her to act in this manner by consuming the images, thus encouraging the child to inflict more harm on his/herself.
Second, even if these particular images were free, the possessor is still helping to create a market for illegal goods. If someone gives you a joint for free, you still can be charged with possession.

Sua

foolsguinea
01-27-2001, 05:23 PM
Umm...
Apparently, if someone in the United States produces a piece of artwork--not a photograph--portraying a child having sex, that is now illegal.
So, if someone in the U.S. purchases such a piece of artwork, the purchaser also breaks the law?
What if the artwork was produced before the law was written, or outside the U.S.? Then the "pornographer" is outside the jurisdiction of the law--does the buyer still break the law?

Note that such artwork can be produced without children being sexually assaulted in any way. The buyer is not paying to have children sexually abused. He's buying a work of art. No American child has been assaulted--nor even approached. Where is the harm?

The offense appears to be in the portrayal of children in sexual positions.

OK, some of you will say, we agree with that. Some ideas are hateful, and ought to be regulated as such.

But U.S. law considers any human being under 18 a child! Even for the purposes of child-porn laws! Go back and read the above paragraphs with "17-year-old" substituted for "child". Does that make sense?

I once read a thread on this message board (& I'm sure there are others) where a poster discussed sex with her boyfriend when they were in high school. That, apparently, was "kiddie porn"--according to Congress.

I think these laws have been made largely by people who are against erotica/pornography generally, but no longer have popular support for a total ban on sexually explicit material. Thus, we have a compromise position, claiming to protect "children".

I think a more coherent "cut-off" for what is considered obscene as art would be the sexual maturity of the figure or character portrayed.

As for people actually involved in sex acts for photographic porn, I think current law is pretty good. The abuse of teenagers by pornographers is rightly discouraged. But understand this: sexual abuse by pornographers is not the same as the portrayal or recording of same. If we discuss this rationally and informedly, we can parse differences in kinds of sexual abuse. But that's apparently too much for some people--including Congress--to accept.

SuaSponte
01-27-2001, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by foolsguinea
Umm...
Apparently, if someone in the United States produces a piece of artwork--not a photograph--portraying a child having sex, that is now illegal.
Untrue. If a piece of artwork/computer animation/etc. depicting a child having sex is produced without a child being used as a model, it isn't illegal under U.S. kiddie porn laws. It may be illegal under local obscenity laws, but that's another issue.

But U.S. law considers any human being under 18 a child! Even for the purposes of child-porn laws! Go back and read the above paragraphs with "17-year-old" substituted for "child". Does that make sense?
Age restrictions, in any context, are constitutional. Certainly, there are seventeen y.o.'s out there mature enough to make good decisions about their sexuality, just as there are 14 y.o.'s who are mature enough to drive.
But, the large majority aren't, and the cost to the state of individually determining who is and isn't mature enough would be overwhelming. Thus, since a fundamental constitutional right isn't implicated (there is no right to have sex, much to my chagrin :D), a blanket age restriction is constitutional so long as it is "rationally related" to the goal - prevention of the sexual exploitation of people unable to make a mature decision about their sexuality.

[/QUOTE]I once read a thread on this message board (& I'm sure there are others) where a poster discussed sex with her boyfriend when they were in high school. That, apparently, was "kiddie porn"--according to Congress.[/QUOTE]

Cite please. As noted above, this wouldn't fall within U.S. descriptions of kiddie porn. If it did, every memoir that mentioned the author's pre-18 sexual experiences would be illegal. They aren't.

I think a more coherent "cut-off" for what is considered obscene as art would be the sexual maturity of the figure or character portrayed.
In a perfect world, you are right. But given the costs involved, the blanket restriction makes sense.

But understand this: sexual abuse by pornographers is not the same as the portrayal or recording of same. If we discuss this rationally and informedly, we can parse differences in kinds of sexual abuse. But that's apparently too much for some people--including Congress--to accept.
But you can't have one without the other. If the sexual abuse doesn't occur, there is nothing to record. Further, there is a secondary argument that the existence of the kiddie porn photos harms the child. He/she did not (could not, under law) consent, his/her parents cannot consent for him/her, under law, to an illegal act (the sexual abuse), and therefore the child is left with photos out in the world of them being sexually abused. The psychological impact of that is obvious.

Sua

yabob
01-27-2001, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by MaynardJK
To Yabob: I didn't mean to attack you. I was attacking the idea. You were just the punching bag.

So that's where this went.

Hell, no offense taken, and I didn't feel "punched" very hard anyway. As I said, I was pointing out an argument one could make, one which I wouldn't personally wish to defend.

I'm now participating in a post in Great Debates ... just ducky. It's what I get for opening my trap on a "hot button" issue rather than just sticking to trivia questions.

But, as long as I'm here - simple nudity not expressly intended by the producer to elicit arousal is not pornography in my book, even if that is the effect on a large portion of the audience. That includes nude children.

And there is a WORLD of difference between sexually explicit material involving underage, but post-pubescent teenagers, and such material involving pre-pubescent children. The current legal situation is not realistic in not recognizing this.

erislover
01-27-2001, 08:10 PM
So...uh, waitaminite. Are rotten.com's pics illegal which depict murder victims? Suicide?

I've got a video from WW2 where some guy gets his throat cut. Can I be prosecuted because I possess pics of something it would be illegal for me to do?

*sigh*

Orwell, my friend, you knew all too well. ;) Junior anti-sex league indeed.

SuaSponte
01-27-2001, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by aynrandlover
So...uh, waitaminite. Are rotten.com's pics illegal which depict murder victims? Suicide?

I've got a video from WW2 where some guy gets his throat cut. Can I be prosecuted because I possess pics of something it would be illegal for me to do?

*sigh*

Orwell, my friend, you knew all too well. ;) Junior anti-sex league indeed.

I was wondering when you would show up, ayn ;).
The difference is that people kill people for whatever motive, but the motive is not to sell photographs of the murder. Unca Cece has written that a real "snuff film" has never been uncovered, and that the evidence is that they do not exist. Hence, if you possess a photo of someone murdering someone, you are not creating market pressure for people to go out and kill more people.
OTOH, with kiddie porn, it is a commercial practice. Kiddie porn is created with the intent to sell it to others. Hence, if you possess kiddie porn, you are creating a market for more kiddie porn to be made.

Sua

Northern Piper
01-27-2001, 09:57 PM
If anyone's interested, here's a link to a news article, outlining the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada: Child Porn Law Upheld (http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSLaw0101/26_childporn-cp.html).

And here's a link to an interview with the fellow whose criminal case triggered the SCC decision: Sharpe says he's paid a high price for fighting law (http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSLaw0101/26_childporn2-cp.html).

DougC
01-28-2001, 05:28 AM
- - - I just hate requoting everything.
SuaS: "This is untrue for two reasons: (1) the illegal conduct in kidding porn is the act of filming the child, not the dessemination of the idea of kids having sex; ...."
- Yes, but the mere possession is illegal, regardless of where it was produced. It is not, as far as I know, any country's duty to enforce any other country's laws. If child porn is legal in a foreign country and produced there, then what are US police arresting US citizens for?
~
" .... and (2) given the strong civil liberties thrust to American law, I doubt that public opinion is relevant. We allow Nazis to march, fer chrissakes - I'm not sure how much more unpopular an idea you could find."
- Well, child pornography, for one.
~
"... The person who received it over the internet in a foreign country is not going to be prosecuted by U.S. authorities, obviously. It is outside of their jurisdiction. Not sure how this is relevant to a discussion of U.S. kiddie porn law. ..."
- Many people are busted for possession and distribution, not production. Possession of child porn is illegal, if you made it yourself or not. It's just a matter of if the prosecutor wants to bring charges against you for it.
~
".... Arjuna34 was right on point. The purpose of the analogy is that the buyer of untaxed liquor isn't the person who owed the tax in the first place. However, his/her possession of the untaxed liquor is illegal because he/she is rewarding an illegal act/creating a market pressure for more of the crime to be committed. ...."
----No, it's not like that, because there is no tax revenue from child porn, under any circumstances. As I read it, in the US taxing an illegal act is considered double jeopardy/self-incrimination, and not allowable. If you're caught, they don't arrest you for not paying your child porn tax.
~
".... Obscenity is a matter of regional public opinion (or "community standards"), not kiddie porn. Kiddie porn is illegal everywhere in the U.S. As for your "emotional aspects", personally, I'm not arguing this from an emotional POV, but a legal POV. The legal issue is the injury caused to the child. As for your assertion that kiddie porn was ever legal in the U.S., cite please. To my knowledge, before the enactment of specific kiddie porn laws, kiddie porn was covered by other morality laws. They usually weren't constitutional, but they did criminalize kiddie porn. ...."
- Child porn was never legal in that way, but it used to be a "young bride" was someone in her early teens. Both involve engaging in sex with a minor. What's the difference between a 14 yr-old girl and a 14 yr-old wife? -A piece of paper. That paper may satisfy some legal definition, but logically it means nothing.
~
".... What's this mean? Are you arguing that the possessor of thousands of images should be arrested, but not the possessor or one or two. If so, please explain. "
- When I read stories in the newspaper or hear them from police, usually the guys they publicize catching have stored hundreds or thousands of images, not just a couple - these guys definitely didn't find this stuff by accident. That could be for two reasons: maybe the police don't often catch someone just getting started in this actvity, or it could mean that if someone "accidentally" runs across a single child-porn image on the web, and if by some circumstance their net admin/ISP admin is watching and catches them and reports them to the police, but no other images are found, , , the prosecutor has the option not to file charges. Which sounds fairly reasonable, considering that I know a lot of 18 and 19 yr olds dating 17 and 16 year-olds, and the police aren't out looking for them. - MC

Northern Piper
01-28-2001, 09:01 AM
As I read it, in the US taxing an illegal act is considered double jeopardy/self-incrimination, and not allowable.

No, they're two entirely different concepts. All income is taxable, whether it's from illegal or legal sources - just ask Al Capone.

Hazel
01-28-2001, 09:51 AM
I think the child porn laws would be more effective if they applied only to actual children. That is, children who have not yet reached puberty.

It's perfectly normal to find sexally attractive a person who is post-pubescent but under 18. It is, IMO, NOT normal to find a pre-pubescent child sexually attractive.

erislover
01-28-2001, 09:59 AM
Hazel, you gotta watch that talk around here. The BB Anti-Pedophilia League will jump on you in two seconds ;)

Sua, that is an interesting take on it. I can tell you that I wish I had a video camera when I did my first deed at the ripe age of 14. It'd be a better laugh than a video of a bachelor party IMO, haha.

But, I can see what you're saying. When exactly was child porn outlawed? Anyone know?

SuaSponte
01-28-2001, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by MC
SuaS: "This is untrue for two reasons: (1) the illegal conduct in kidding porn is the act of filming the child, not the dessemination of the idea of kids having sex; ...."
- Yes, but the mere possession is illegal, regardless of where it was produced. It is not, as far as I know, any country's duty to enforce any other country's laws. If child porn is legal in a foreign country and produced there, then what are US police arresting US citizens for?
As I have said many times, the legal theory is that possession of kiddie porn creates market pressures for the creation of more kiddie porn, both abroad and in the U.S.
~
" .... and (2) given the strong civil liberties thrust to American law, I doubt that public opinion is relevant. We allow Nazis to march, fer chrissakes - I'm not sure how much more unpopular an idea you could find."
- Well, child pornography, for one.
Unarguable.

"... The person who received it over the internet in a foreign country is not going to be prosecuted by U.S. authorities, obviously. It is outside of their jurisdiction. Not sure how this is relevant to a discussion of U.S. kiddie porn law. ..."
- Many people are busted for possession and distribution, not production. Possession of child porn is illegal, if you made it yourself or not. It's just a matter of if the prosecutor wants to bring charges against you for it.
Your point was about kiddie porn being distributed across the internet to other jurisdictions. I responded to that.

".... Arjuna34 was right on point. The purpose of the analogy is that the buyer of untaxed liquor isn't the person who owed the tax in the first place. However, his/her possession of the untaxed liquor is illegal because he/she is rewarding an illegal act/creating a market pressure for more of the crime to be committed. ...."
----No, it's not like that, because there is no tax revenue from child porn, under any circumstances. As I read it, in the US taxing an illegal act is considered double jeopardy/self-incrimination, and not allowable. If you're caught, they don't arrest you for not paying your child porn tax.
Do you understand analogy? Let me try again. It is illegal to possess untaxed liquor because in doing so you are creating market pressure for an illegal act, even though you did not commit the illegal act yourself. In that case, the illegal act is failure to pay liquor taxes.
Equivalently, it is illegal to possess kiddie porn because in doing so you are creating market pressure for an illegal act, even though you did not commit the illegal act yourself. In that case, the illegal act is the sexual abuse of a minor.

- Child porn was never legal in that way, but it used to be a "young bride" was someone in her early teens. Both involve engaging in sex with a minor. What's the difference between a 14 yr-old girl and a 14 yr-old wife? -A piece of paper. That paper may satisfy some legal definition, but logically it means nothing.
Still is in some states. You may be right that it is hypocritical to allow underage marriages (with parental consent), and not allow kiddie porn. I submit that, if this is hypocritical (and I haven't thought enough about it to have a position), the appropriate response is to ban underage marriages.
~
".... What's this mean? Are you arguing that the possessor of thousands of images should be arrested, but not the possessor or one or two. If so, please explain. "
- When I read stories in the newspaper or hear them from police, usually the guys they publicize catching have stored hundreds or thousands of images, not just a couple - these guys definitely didn't find this stuff by accident. That could be for two reasons: maybe the police don't often catch someone just getting started in this actvity, or it could mean that if someone "accidentally" runs across a single child-porn image on the web, and if by some circumstance their net admin/ISP admin is watching and catches them and reports them to the police, but no other images are found, , , the prosecutor has the option not to file charges. Which sounds fairly reasonable, considering that I know a lot of 18 and 19 yr olds dating 17 and 16 year-olds, and the police aren't out looking for them. [/QUOTE]
Fair enough. BTW, in most states it is legal for an 18-19 y.o. to date a 16-17 y.o. The age of consent in many jurisdictions is 16 or younger, and many states with an 18 y.o age of consent have an exception if the two parties involved are within X number of years in age.

Sua

DougC
01-28-2001, 01:41 PM
- - - And so on:
Do you understand analogy? Let me try again. It is illegal to possess untaxed liquor because in doing so you are creating market pressure for an illegal act, even though you did not commit the illegal act yourself. In that case, the illegal act is failure to pay liquor taxes. Equivalently, it is illegal to possess kiddie porn because in doing so you are creating market pressure for an illegal act, even though you did not commit the illegal act yourself. In that case, the illegal act is the sexual abuse of a minor. - SuaS
- - - Yes, but you are making an assumption that there is any market at all. Almost all of the child porn I have heard of was traded in chat rooms, due to the difficulty of setting up a commercial operation involving it. If you have no buyers and sellers, you technically have no market. In most countries the act of creating it is illegal, but in most countries the simple posession is illegal also, regardless of if you paid for it or not, or created it or not. When someone is arrested for child porn, they are being arrested for posessing and witholding from the police evidence of a crime that they can't know for certain where (in the world) or when it occurred. That sounds kinda odd to me- last I heard it wasn't an ordinary (US) citizen's legal obligation to report to police every possible crime they had any evidence pertaining to. - MC

Revtim
01-28-2001, 02:39 PM
Suppose I get a bug up my ass against somebody, and email them a bunch a kiddie porn pics with messages like "here's some more or them kiddie pics you like so much, Jethro!" (from an anonymous account of course).

Then I call the cops on them. Depending on Jethro's level of computer experience, he might leave them in his inbox (the cops might break down the door before he even has achance to check his mail), or his deleted mail folder, or they might be marked as erased (at the hard disk level) but still exist as a deleted but not overwritten file.

I wouldn't like to have to explain this situation to a non computer literate jury.

SuaSponte
01-28-2001, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by MC
- - - Yes, but you are making an assumption that there is any market at all. Almost all of the child porn I have heard of was traded in chat rooms, due to the difficulty of setting up a commercial operation involving it. If you have no buyers and sellers, you technically have no market.

Quick cite. A supreme court case ("http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=503&page=540) . If you want stats on the commercial sale of kiddie porn, I'll search the web.

The issue in the case was entrapment, and the guy buying the kiddie porn was found to be entrapped and let off (and rightly so, IMO), but you will note that he had bought kiddie porn from a commercial dealer (which is what got the USPS after him in the first place).
There is a commercial market in kiddie porn. It's not publicized, obviously, but neither is the commercial market for pot. That [puff, puff] exists.

Sua

SuaSponte
01-28-2001, 04:18 PM
A supreme court case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=503&page=540)

drachillix
01-28-2001, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by SuaSponte
Untrue. If a piece of artwork/computer animation/etc. depicting a child having sex is produced without a child being used as a model, it isn't illegal under U.S. kiddie porn laws. It may be illegal under local obscenity laws, but that's another issue.

Oh my the internet instant business hit we have all been looking for...anime kiddie porn.

Get it while its still legal

Thoughts like this came from attending a "private" school for 3rd and 4th grade.

salreus
01-29-2001, 09:11 AM
If the legal age in some state is 15 (Utah), then is it illegal for the over age husband to have nude or sexual pictures of his 15 year old wife? If he gets caught, will he be put in prison? How is it ok for him to marry her, but not have any pictures of her?

Also, about the teen with the web cam. It is said that it is unhealthy for her because she is so young. Why is it that using the web cam is unhealthy because of her age, but it is not unhealthy for her to get married. If we decide that she knows what she is doing at 16 by letting her get married. Then how can we say that she does not know what she is doing if she has web cam because she is so young?

I agree with Sua, maybe we should change the age of marrage. These two things seem to me like the clash.

-sal

Milossarian
01-29-2001, 09:55 AM
As has been mentioned in other threads on this topic, several states have laws that say in essence that the depiction or attempted depiction of child porn is illegal regardless of whether the model is actually underage. Such laws have also been applied to anime and explicit literary accounts of child pornography.

Yes, you're reading that right. In several states (Oklahoma was the one specifically mentioned in the material I found on the 'Net for the last thread), you don't need children to have child porn.

Ptahlis
01-29-2001, 10:23 AM
Market pressures? Well, I can see how this was applicable back when this sort of material was in underground magazines that people bought and sold. It seems less and less applicable in this digital age though. (I am speaking merely from the possession standpoint, not creation.) Log into any IRC server and you will see rooms like "Daddy-Daughter Sex" and "Naked Pre-teens." Usenet also has a number of newsgroups like the above. How exactly is some schmoe downloading pictures from a Usenet server creating any kind of a market? It seems to me that the whole market excuse is little more than a legal fiction, an attempt to rationalize our condemnation of the whole thing.

Eohippus
01-29-2001, 10:44 AM
Uh, getting back to the OP, the case referred to was possibly one that occurred late last year, in my town. The man in question was Vice (appropriately!) Principal at the regional high school. The porn was in his office computer, not at home, and dated back to 1998. They also found a bag of weed in his desk drawer, and a pipe, which he explained away as having confiscated from a student.

jonas
01-29-2001, 02:19 PM
How long does information stay on your hard drive after it has been deleted, and why does it stay there. If you are getting your hard drive fixed and they run across some questionable photos, is it an invasion of privacy? I've heard stories of people getting arrested for child porn for this very reason (sorry no cites, just word of mouth). What right does a computer technician have to go rummaging through your deleted files?

matt_mcl
01-29-2001, 05:44 PM
One weird aspect of Canada's child pornography laws is that you are not allowed to possess porn of children under 18, notwithstanding that the legal age for sex is 14 (subject to certain restrictions.)

The guy at the centre of the recently settled lawsuit argued, "Why on earth is it illegal for me to have pictures, but legal for me to have the real thing?"