Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve been absolutely steaming drunk and online and the worst I do is send ridiculous messages to everyone on my Facebook and post nonsense on here on occasion. In other words, I think it’s total nonsense to blame alcohol for something you’d never consider when sober - how many vodka shots would it take before you would murder your mother? You’d pass out first.
So I think he’s talking absolute shite on a stick. America imprisons more of its population than any society, but some people deserve the harsh punishment of prison more than others and people who ‘accidentally’ look at kiddy diddling to me are firmly in the ‘deserve it’ camp.
Anyway that’s just my opinion. If a man clicks on a link to child porn, should he do time?
Grissom was specifically referring to 16 year olds. Not little kids.
Tons of porn is labeled hot teen, barely legal, babyface, college girls etc. Usually its a 22 year old woman in pigtails or a cheerleader outfit. Everyone know these models are over 18. The fine print on the web site will even state that all models are at least 18. They maintain id records to prove it. Its all a silly fantasy with adult women playing the role of barely legal teens.
But in the case Grissom mentioned apparently it was a jailbait honeytrap setup by the cops.
It does underscore the importance of only visiting reputable web sites that very clearly indicate all models are over 18. If this isn’t on the web page then don’t visit!
I avoid the Russian, Polish and other east euro web sites. Just to be safe because they may be lying about maintaining age records.
Most people wouldn’t consider it, but some do. The question is, do we punish them for just having those feelings, and going as far as viewing child porn, but have enough self-restraint to not take any further action?
This American Life had a story on pedophilia recently (transcript here, scroll down to Act Two: “Help Wanted”). They interviewed people who have sexual feelings for young children, and trying to deal with those feelings. Those people know it’s wrong, and are seeking help, but evidently there isn’t much help out there available.
My opinion is that most people who view child porn need help from mental health professionals, support groups, or whatever it takes to help them deal with the issue. Throwing them in jail does not seem to be an effective solution, nor a good use of resources.
I have been on the web while totally wasted and to my knowledge, have NEVER seen child porn. There is nothing that would allow me to think of any person anywhere near 12 or 13 (or younger) as remotely sexy. That is just ick
In that case it’s a question of definition, he said;
*“We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who’ve never harmed anybody, would never touch a child… But they …pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into **child **porn.” *
Bolding mine. I think it’s pretty clear what he’s saying, he’s not talking about ‘barely legal’ but the wrong way round. Although this is why I included the third option, e.g. if the age of those who are abused in the images should be a factor in whether they get jail time.
Isn’t it action enough? It creates the market for the abusers. This came up in the interview; “Asked about the argument that viewing child pornography fuelled the industry of abuse needed to create the pictures, Mr Grisham said that current sentencing policies failed to draw a distinction between real-world abusers and those who downloaded content, accidentally or otherwise.”
But that’s not an argument for leniency on one side, just harsher sentencing for “real-world” abusers, as if there’s a vacuum that abuse is filmed in and those who go on and view it have nothing to do with its creation. If money changes hands the connection is obvious. Don’t know how many kiddy-diddling sites ask for credit card info but I imagine it’s a high proportion.
This is why I put the word ‘accidentally’ in pinky quotes, what with all major search engines eliminating it from results finding it purely by chance is so remote as to be a transparent excuse.
I was a mod on a dial up bulletin board back in 88-91. We had some nudist photos with kids posted. After quite a bit of discussion we deleted the stuff from our board and banned the poster.
Nudism is a gray area. It’s not sexual. Those magazines were legally sold in the 40’s and 50’s. But a naked kid is just too dangerous to have on your computer. No matter what the content or how innocent the image might be.
You can’t even report this stuff to authorities. They’ll bust your ass for possessing it. Even a mod trying to do the right thing. Best course is delete off a bulletin board or server and purge your computer cache.
The law against viewing child porn is motivated from exactly same philosophy as the law against owning ivory or snakeskin – allowing it encourages the producers of it to create a product for the marketplace. But nobody is ever prosecuted for owning a piece of such products, even though you can be for simply picking up a wild bird feather wind-blown across your front yard. Doing so, in the real world, has no effect on the prevalence of wild animal poachers, just as viewing child porn has no effect on the prevalence of the producers of child porn. There will be child porn forever, no matter now many lonely internet surfers get thrown into prison for daring to click on it. In fact, criminalizing it actually encourages it, because a producer can get a better price for ann underground product.
There is a very fine shade of distinction (if any) between the creation of child porn, and the creation of porn using adults who have less then perfect circumstances in which they can refuse to participate. There is no law, nor even social sanction, against viewing adult porn involving actresses who are not fully voluntary. The legal age of consent is 16 or lower in every single country in the world in which child porn is produced, except for a tiny bit of it that slips through the cracks in the USA.
Stuck in jail, labeled for life with a scarlet A, and when released a leach on society because they can’t get a job. Sounds great.
OR each case could be treated individually with leeway for circumstances, some of that kabillion military budget could be used to fund help for these people (HA!)*
*“Joe Smith wants to cut our military budget. He wants to empower terrorists and use the money to help sexual offenders. Vote for Jane Doe this fall.”
I’m not really convinced that jail time is a great way to handle many crimes. I’m not sure what the best way is, but jail time just seems so counterproductive for non-violent criminals. And we do need more resources for pedophiles who don’t want to hurt anyone. Treatment, not punishment. I feel differently about those who actually produce pre-pubescent porn, obviously, which is a hugely different thing than “not-quite barely legal” stuff.
I thought this was going to be about something different. I do think that child pornography laws get bloody stupid at times, but that’s more to do with the stupidity of declaring it illegal for a teenager to see their boyfriend or girlfriend naked, but not to have sex with them. On the other hand, I do agree with Aceplace that the aura of fear of becoming collateral damage in the next witch hunt is pretty fucked up. It’s like that bullshit UK anti-terrorism law, where you have explicitly criminalised being communicated to.
I voted for “other,” because I have not been pleased with some of the honeytrap methods used by law enforcement … but John Grisham sounds completely ridiculous here. People who get drunk and “accidentally” view child porn are not relevant (and possibly non-existent) to the crux of the problematic issues with the honeytraps. And “sixty year old white men” … wow, my heart bleeds.