# Reforming child porn laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 3, 2015, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791 "2015-09-03T05:40:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/121 "2015-09-11T19:19:09Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Banning images of children or simulated children engaged in activity that is illegal and made only for the purpose of pedophiles jerking off is quite a bit different than banning literature. We ban bestiality but who does it harm? Bondage porn cant show intercourse. Whole lot of wrong here… Much simulated child porn shows no illegal activity at all: little kids sunbathing, little kids swimming, etc. Simulated bestiality porn is not banned: you can legally have paintings of guys doing it with sheep. And bondage porn can show intercourse, and very often does. I’m astonished at this claim. You been surfin’ the wrong sites! ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/122 "2015-09-11T19:40:36Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Whole lot of wrong here… > > Much simulated child porn shows no illegal activity at all: little kids sunbathing, little kids swimming, etc. Simulated bestiality porn is not banned: you can legally have paintings of guys doing it with sheep. And bondage porn can show intercourse, and very often does. I’m astonished at this claim. > > You been surfin’ the wrong sites! It does look like bondage porn with intercourse is kinda legal. Miller v California is still on the books and it comes down to community standards. Bestiality (filmed not drawn) is a mixed bag in the USA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia\_and\_the\_law\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law_in_the_United_States) In California its legal to posess and sell in state but illegal to sell interstate. There are gray areas here that a zealous prosecutor could exploit. It is probably safe as long as it flies under the radar. State lawmakers can easily ban it and garner some easy headlines. ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/123 "2015-09-11T23:14:14Z")
I always wondered is it possible for an infected computer or smartphone to unknowingly take one to a child porn site, and then the innocent user of the device being arrested? Maybe some bug, virus unknowingly taking you to such website? I guess it is possible. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/124 "2015-09-11T23:19:21Z")
> [@Nema98](#): > > I always wondered is it possible for an infected computer or smartphone to unknowingly take one to a child porn site, and then the innocent user of the device being arrested? Maybe some bug, virus unknowingly taking you to such website? I guess it is possible. I dont think they would arrest you for simply visiting a site. Its when someone has a cache of pics or vids that they get arrested. ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/125 "2015-09-11T23:22:11Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > I dont think they would arrest you for simply visiting a site. Its when someone has a cache of pics or vids that they get arrested. Okay I was totally not aware of that. I always hear on the news that pedophiles are busted when police confiscate their computers, and I assumed Police tracked the IP addresses when the suspect visited child porn sites. Now how does the police find out the individual has a cache of pictures and videos? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2015, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/126 "2015-09-12T00:00:19Z")
Most often it’s when they try to shame pics around, and get into a network of file-sharing/file-swapping nodes. Since one of those nodes is guaranteed to be run by the FBI, people who connect and start offering goodies for swap are tracked down pretty swiftly. Such nodes are pretty much the only way you can get ahold of the really raspy stuff. You aren’t going to get arrested for crap you download from legitimate (ick) sites. If the stuff on 4chan was illegal, 4chan would have ceased to exist years ago. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2015, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/127 "2015-09-12T00:01:31Z")
> [@Nema98](#): > > Okay I was totally not aware of that. I always hear on the news that pedophiles are busted when police confiscate their computers, and I assumed Police tracked the IP addresses when the suspect visited child porn sites. > > Now how does the police find out the individual has a cache of pictures and videos? Im not an expert but the stories I have read usually involve a 3rd party (like a repairman) discovering them and contacting authorities. Then if this person is in a pic sharing group they can track them down. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/128 "2015-09-12T00:40:50Z")
> [@Nema98](#): > > I always wondered is it possible for an infected computer or smartphone to unknowingly take one to a child porn site, and then the innocent user of the device being arrested? Maybe some bug, virus unknowingly taking you to such website? I guess it is possible. > [@madsircool](#): > > I dont think they would arrest you for simply visiting a site. Its when someone has a cache of pics or vids that they get arrested. It is precisely when you simply visit a site–any site–that you get a cache of images. That’s how the internet works. Every website you visit **automatically** downloads certain images, so that the site loads faster for you the next time. Case law is split on that point. > **[Crying Over the Cache: Why Technology Has Compromised the Uniform...](https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol81/iss1/5/)** > > As thousands of individuals surf the internet daily, every image on every web page is saved automatically to their computer’s cache, absent user direction. Sections 2252(a)(2) and 2252(a)(4)(B) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code criminalize knowing... [http://www.jgcrimlaw.com/child-pornography-possession-of.html](http://www.jgcrimlaw.com/child-pornography-possession-of.html) > [@](#): > > Owners and users of computers do not have total control over what winds up stored in their computer. And, strangely enough, there is nothing owners or users can do to fully protect themselves from child pornography being placed on their computers without their knowledge or assent. > **[19-berkeley-tech-l-j-1227-1274.pdf](https://www.btlj.org/data/articles2015/vol19/19_4/19-berkeley-tech-l-j-1227-1274.pdf)** > > 254.45 KB (jump to page 13) ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2015, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/129 "2015-09-12T01:45:34Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > It is precisely when you simply visit a site–any site–that you get a cache of images. That’s how the internet works. Every website you visit **automatically** downloads certain images, so that the site loads faster for you the next time. > > Case law is split on that point. > > [http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol81/iss1/5/](http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol81/iss1/5/) > > [http://www.jgcrimlaw.com/child-pornography-possession-of.html](http://www.jgcrimlaw.com/child-pornography-possession-of.html) > > [http://www.btlj.org/data/articles2015/vol19/19\_4/19-berkeley-tech-l-j-1227-1274.pdf](http://www.btlj.org/data/articles2015/vol19/19_4/19-berkeley-tech-l-j-1227-1274.pdf) > (jump to page 13) Wouldnt clearing the cache and deleting cookies get rid of the images? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2015, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/130 "2015-09-12T04:18:15Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Wouldnt clearing the cache and deleting cookies get rid of the images? Until that disk space is reused the 1s and 0s that form the image are still sitting on that sector of the HD platter or the solid memory, all you removed were file access pointers that marked the space as occupied. You’d need to secure-wipe it and many people don’t know how to do so (or in how many other places the system has left file shrapnel behind). ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2015, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/131 "2015-09-12T04:30:33Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Until that disk space is reused the 1s and 0s that form the image are still sitting on that sector of the HD platter or the solid memory, all you removed were file access pointers that marked the space as occupied. You’d need to secure-wipe it and many people don’t know how to do so (or in how many other places the system has left file shrapnel behind). Yikes. What a vengeful ex-lover could do. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2015, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/132 "2015-09-17T04:48:54Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I don’t know of evidence that porn reduces rape…but there certainly is no evidence that it increases it, and that’s all that we need for the basis of a liberal public policy. That’s more or less where I stand. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > People do use this as a defense and I believe have been acquitted of statutory rape in such cases where it was clearly reasonable to believe the girl was 18 or older. Because the text of the law allowed it or because jury nullification? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2015, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/133 "2015-09-17T05:08:47Z")
Isn’t there a third option? Honest ignorance, despite due diligence, should be a defense. If the partner claims to be 18, and shows a driver license that says 18, but is really 16 and faked the license…how, in any honest justice, can someone be prosecuted for having sex with them? This happens often with stolen property: if the guy who sold it to me said it was legitimately obtained…but it turns out to be stolen…my defense is that I had no way to know it was stolen. It isn’t “jury nullification” exactly, to find someone not guilty on that basis. (In practice, it shouldn’t even be prosecuted.) ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2015, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/134 "2015-09-17T05:12:45Z")
Justice calls for, I’d say, a “negligent” or “reckless” standard. However, it’s my understanding that statutory rape laws are typically strict liability. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2015, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/135 "2015-09-18T03:13:57Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > BS. Its on you to prove simulated kiddie porn has any positive effect. BS. It’s on you, since you want to make it illegal. The default in a free country is that something is legal. By your logic, since we can’t prove that adult porn doesn’t increase incidents of rape, adult porn should be illegal. Child porn is illegal because it exploits children. That’s the only justification that works. Simulations that look real are illegal to avoid people faking a simulation but using a real child. Obscenity can make drawn porn illegal, but it’s really hard to prove obscenity. What’s fucked up is that the U.S. has the best laws on the subject. Including the fact that you can make a defense that you have less than 3 child porn images and reported them right away. (I looked this up the last time someone whined about animated child porn being illegal. In other countries, yes. In the U.S., not so much.) ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/136 "2015-09-19T23:39:21Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > Is… I’m almost afraid to ask… Is animated child fucking and porn actors pretending to be children something that normal adults enjoy in a completely sane and non creepy way? I’m at a loss here, is this something that we really need to be made legal? I’m sure the laws could be tweaked, I know nothing about them and have no opinion on them, I just can’t fathom why these things, especially animated kids having sex, is something we should support. OK, here’s some examples of stuff that I personally own that involves drawings of minors in sexual situations: 1. Autobiographical comics by women who were sexually abused (for example, Phoebe Glockner’s _A Child’s Life_) 2. Autobiographical comics by neurotic dudes who want to go into waaaaay TMI about their teenage masturbatory habits (the entire oeuvre of Chester Brown) 3. High-school romance comics aimed at teenage girls in which at the end of the book the average-Jane protagonist and the smoking hot love interest consummate their love amid an explosion of roses (because girls like smut too); there are hundreds of these, and they are almost certainly the single biggest category of commercially-produced drawings of underage sex in the US (as opposed to amateur online art). All of these things are (probably) legal in the US, but only through the actions of the courts; the original wording of the PROTECT Act attempted to define _all_ non-photographic images of minors as obscene and therefore illegal. People need to remember that in the context of child pornography laws, all persons under 18 are children and all sex is pornography. Extending these laws to fiction picks up a lot of stuff that most people wouldn’t categorize as “child pornography”. Even excluding the “prosecuting a thought crime” objection to criminalizing non-photographic images (which I agree with), there are legitimate reasons for depicting underage sex. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791.md?page=6)