Support NeoGAF

[cutmeamango]

So let's say someone goes out with a camera with the intent of making a video. They kill someone and then distribute the video online. Everyone who downloads it is now a criminal? That seems rather ridiculous, and to be honest I can't imagine anyone would support such a law unless they felt they needed to do so in order to appear consistent.

I said a quantity but 1 does estabilish a quantity haha
I meant someone with a considerable quantity (more than 3 perhaps? I don't know how they estabilish these sorts of things).
That way it would be more than a morbid curiosity, a distasteful hoarding, that drives the production of said videos.

 

[KHarvey16]

I said a quantity but 1 does estabilish a quantity haha
I meant someone with a considerable quantity (more than 3 perhaps? I don't know how they estabilish these sorts of things).
That way it would be more than a morbid curiosity, a distasteful hoarding, that drives the production of said videos.

But how does that make sense? If your argument is that consumption creates demand, how is one video ok but 3 or 4 is not? Is it ok to contribute to the abuse of 1 child, but 3 is too many? Also, you seem to be implying that the videos are merely a symptom of the thing you really want to punish. That is an extremely dangerous path to walk down.

 

[Vamphuntr]

It's a sexual orientation but it's horribly wrong. Pretty sure they are born attracted to little kids like you are born attracted to men and/or women. While straights, Bis, Lesbians and Gays can satisfy their urges easily, the pedos can't. We see a lot of cases in the news where they explicitly trick/kidnap/rape little kids which is truly disguting but I'm not sure all pedos are like that. Some must be able to control themselves. It seems like a quite a generalization to assume that all of them are creepy child molesters. They must know what they are attracted to is wrong. Whether or not they can control their urges will make them evil or not. Pretty sure it can't be cured. Castration only lead to a reduced sexual drive. It's like those "cures" to homosexuality which pretty much aim at repressing yourself.

 

[Psychotext]

They are part of the demand of this material, so I don't really understand why you don't see the consumption not doing damage, its the main reason the material was made in the first place.

I guess that makes sense. I was unaware that most of this stuff is made for others rather than for the satisfaction of the person perpetrating the abuse.

 

[cutmeamango]

But how does that make sense? If your argument is that consumption creates demand, how is one video ok but 3 or 4 is not? Is it ok to contribute to the abuse of 1 child, but 3 is too many? Also, you seem to be implying that the videos are merely a symptom of the thing you really want to punish. That is an extremely dangerous path to walk down.

Like this:
The times I visited 4chan some years ago, I came across some gruesome child pornography (one of the reasons I dread that place). So at a moment, I had access to child pornography.
That alone I don't think it's reasonable to estabilish a demand (from my part) for child pornography.
Now, if I had pictures (gifs) saved of such terrible material, even if 3, I think it is reasonable to frame me. The production of cp is a crime, and consciently possessing that should/is too.

Same goes for the video of someone purposedly murdering another (and filming). You may stumble across, and for some morbid curiosity watch. Now if you consciently possess a quantity of that kind of material, I say it is pretty reasonable to deem it a crime, even if a minor infraction (compared to child pornography).

 

[Extollere]

I would vote that, human sexuality being as complex as it is, we can term pedophilia a disorder and find evidence to back it up if we choose. It's a problematic area. Personally, I view the sexualized urges that lead to being attracted to children, as being an unlucky roll on the human sexuality character sheet. The individual in question has, in addition to whatever *nurture* resulted in his/her sexual turn on, gotten a rarer combination of sexual attributes which end up expressing themselves as erotic reaction to juvenile human beings.

This is the problem with playing the thought police card. Human beings are barely in control of their conscious mind as it is. So much of our own thought processes are hidden from us, and bubble up without being invoked by a rational decision or rational belief. Often, we are led to believe that we "chose" to do something when the choice had already been made for us and we're just rationalizing what we're doing after the fact.

Trying to play up pedophile paranoia into "those evil people must be punished for their VILE THOUGHTS!" is a totally unworkable scenario. It's just not practical to get into thought policing - whatever the subject, not just on the issue of pedophilia.

Part of the problem that pedophiles face, I think, is that they know what they're thinking is viewed with the most irrational hatred by most of society. Especially today, when ordinary, well adjusted adult men go around in terror of being seen standing too close to a child in public lest bystanders think they're An Evil Pedo About To Snatch And Grab.

I'd wager this is part of what drives the underground CP industry, and drives consumption of CP. When you box a person in, corner them, they tend to turn self destructive. Someone with pedophillic thoughts may very well turn into "one of those people": collecting hundreds of hours of CP, having the prototypical kiddie porn dungeon, etc, because it's not something they can even talk about to other people... ever. I'd suspect most people who've drawn the pedophile card are terrified of even paying for their own shrink and talking to a professional about it - too afraid of the information leaking or being leaked on purpose.

Pretty well posed.

 

[KHarvey16]

Like this:
The times I visited 4chan some years ago, I came across some gruesome child pornography (one of the reasons I dread that place). So at a moment, I had access to child pornography.
That alone I don't think it's reasonable to estabilish a demand (from my part) for child pornography.
Now, if I had pictures (gifs) saved of such terrible material, even if 3, I think it is reasonable to frame me. The production of cp is a crime, and consciently possessing that should/is too.

What if the creator was motivated by shocking people like you with the child porn he produces? You were his audience and you have perpetuated his criminality and inspired him to abuse more children. Let's not forget the picture is saved in your cache. Shame on you.

Same goes for the video of someone purposedly murdering another (and filming). You may stumble across, and for some morbid curiosity watch. Now if you consciently possess a quantity of that kind of material, I say it is pretty reasonable to deem it a crime, even if a minor infraction (compared to child pornography).

What quantity? At what point is the person demented enough for you to consider them a criminal? (I hope you've picked up on the point I'm conveying in that last sentence)

 

[mantidor]

What if the creator was motivated by shocking people like you with the child porn he produces? You were his audience and you have perpetuated his criminality and inspired him to abuse more children. Let's not forget the picture is saved in your cache. Shame on you.



What quantity? At what point is the person demented enough for you to consider them a criminal? (I hope you've picked up on the point I'm conveying in that last sentence)

There's a big difference between having stuff in your browser's cache and having a CP folder. has there really been a case when someone was convicted just for files in the cache? Every single news story always reports on thousands of images and videos when they find one of these people.

 

[Pollux]

Like this:
The times I visited 4chan some years ago, I came across some gruesome child pornography (one of the reasons I dread that place). So at a moment, I had access to child pornography.
That alone I don't think it's reasonable to estabilish a demand (from my part) for child pornography.
Now, if I had pictures (gifs) saved of such terrible material, even if 3, I think it is reasonable to frame me. The production of cp is a crime, and consciently possessing that should/is too.

Same goes for the video of someone purposedly murdering another (and filming). You may stumble across, and for some morbid curiosity watch. Now if you consciently possess a quantity of that kind of material, I say it is pretty reasonable to deem it a crime, even if a minor infraction (compared to child pornography).

So the people who go to 4chan and look for that stuff aren't committing a crime (b/c they aren't paying or downloading)? they only are committing a crime if they download it?

 

[KHarvey16]

There's a big difference between having stuff in your browser's cache and having a CP folder. has there really been a case when someone was convicted just for files in the cache? Every single news story always reports on thousands of images and videos when they find one of these people.

Explain to me the reasoning behind arresting someone for saving thousands of images but not arresting someone for viewing on the internet thousands of images and only having them in their internet cache(or otherwise possessing the images unknowingly, as is the standard in most states). How much demand must one instigate to be considered a criminal?

 

[cutmeamango]

What if the creator was motivated by shocking people like you with the child porn he produces? You were his audience and you have perpetuated his criminality and inspired him to abuse more children. Let's not forget the picture is saved in your cache. Shame on you.

What quantity? At what point is the person demented enough for you to consider them a criminal? (I hope you've picked up on the point I'm conveying in that last sentence)

I guess I did help him get his kicks off, if his sole intent was to people only visualize, yet I did not contributed with further visualizations and exploitations.
And I always cleared the cache, phewwwww, otherwise I would have been a temporary cp hoarder!

I don't even know why you asked that again since at one of my first replies I said:
"considerable quantity (more than 3 perhaps? I don't know how they estabilish these sorts of things)."
And I stated two times:
"consciently possessing"
So while you can interpret (to be playful, I see that's your attitude haha) consciently possessing as "you know you've seen it, and forgot to clear your cache", I mean "hey, I better save this one, nice".

 

[cutmeamango]

So the people who go to 4chan and look for that stuff aren't committing a crime (b/c they aren't paying or downloading)? they only are committing a crime if they download it?

Well, they are commiting a crime if they go looking for that stuff, but they are getting away with it. What's your point?

 

[Pollux]

Well, they are commiting a crime if they go looking for that stuff, but they are getting away with it. What's your point?

My point as that I thought that they got in trouble too or something...as the poster above said, what's the difference between downloading it and then looking for it and having it in the cache or some other form of storage?

 

[KHarvey16]

I guess I did help him get his kicks off, if his sole intent was to people only visualize, yet I did not contributed with further visualizations and exploitations.
And I always cleared the cache, phewwwww, otherwise I would have been a temporary cp hoarder!

So stimulating demand once is ok but more than once is not? Why? This sounds arbitrary.

I don't even know why you asked that again since at one of my first replies I said:
"considerable quantity (more than 3 perhaps? I don't know how they estabilish these sorts of things)."
And I stated two times:
"consciently possessing"
So while you can interpret (to be playful, I see that's your attitude haha) consciently possessing as "you know you've seen it, and forgot to clear your cache", I mean "hey, I better save this one, nice".

I think you're missing my point a little. What I'm implying is you seek to punish a person for what they are thinking or what they desire. Being a pedophile is not illegal, just as fantasizing about murder or smoking crack is not illegal. Murder, smoking crack and raping children is illegal, but the thought process is not. If your goal is to use the quantity of porn to measure the level of desire, you're criminalizing thought.

 

[cutmeamango]

My point as that I thought that they got in trouble too or something...as the poster above said, what's the difference between downloading it and then looking for it and having it in the cache or some other form of storage?

The difference is evidence, mostly.

So stimulating demand once is ok but more than once is not? Why? This sounds arbitrary.

I think you're missing my point a little. What I'm implying is you seek to punish a person for what they are thinking or what they desire. Being a pedophile is not illegal, just as fantasizing about murder or smoking crack is not illegal. Murder, smoking crack and raping children is illegal, but the thought process is not. If your goal is to use the quantity of porn to measure the level of desire, you're criminalizing thought.

And stimulated once without knowledge? Yes, it is fine, she is not pursuing this type of thing.

I'm criminalizing the possession of illegal material. I don't know why are you still flailing that line of thought, but maybe I haven't been clear enough in my past posts.

You mentioned drugs, and this topic it has a close (or comparable) line for the law: if you have a certain quantity of weed in your possession, you are fined for possession of illegal substance and that is it, if you possess an amount that surpass said limit (for a user) even if you argue that it was all for your use, you face other fines.
Got caught with 1 cp file in your cache? They rule it out. 10 files in your cache? That raises suspicion, at the least. 3 files saved in a folder? Well, well, well.

 

[Pollux]

The difference is evidence, mostly.

lol what does mostly mean?

 

[mantidor]

Explain to me the reasoning behind arresting someone for saving thousands of images but not arresting someone for viewing on the internet thousands of images and only having them in their internet cache(or otherwise possessing the images unknowingly, as is the standard in most states). How much demand must one instigate to be considered a criminal?

Thousands of images in a cache is the same as thousands in a folder. I don't think is that hard to determine whether the guy was tricked into clicking a 4chan link or if consumes the material regularly. A decent computer forensics expert shouldn't have a problem finding that out.

But regarding your specific question, once you can be proved to be a consumer, you should be considered a criminal, it can take only two images, or it can take thousands, but finding out if someone is a consumer is not a matter of just counting how many gifs of child porn the guy has in the computer, its a matter of proving you actively seek for that material and weren't just "hacked" or "tricked" into it. Again, I assume police does the correct procedure when evaluating that, I think (hope so) they don't just do a search of *.jpg and browse the files.

 

[KHarvey16]

But regarding your specific question, once you can be proved to be a consumer, you should be considered a criminal...

Why?

 

[mantidor]

Why?

You are not reading, because you are part of the demand, you actively created the market for the material.

 

[KHarvey16]

You are not reading, because you are part of the demand, you actively created the market for the material.

How? If someone obtains images from the internet and has no interaction with the producer, how do they create demand? How can the originator of these photos know they have an audience if they have no knowledge of this person downloading the image, or even of the image existing on whatever site this person downloaded it from? Where is the link?

 

[cutmeamango]

lol what does mostly mean?

most·ly
Adverb/ˈmōstlē/
1. As regards the greater part or number.
2. Usually.

It means if it comes to a point that you have your computer raided/searched, you were being looked up for a reason.
So in both cases, if you are going to consider the criminality of it all, usually, the difference will be evidences.

I replied you in the post above, KHarvey16.

 

[Pollux]

most·ly
Adverb/ˈmōstlē/
1. As regards the greater part or number.
2. Usually.

It means if it comes to a point that you have your computer raided/searched, you were being looked up for a reason.
So in both cases, if you are going to consider the criminality of it all, usually, the difference will be evidences.

I replied you in the post above, KHarvey16.

Ah, I was thinking there as some complex legal difference that you just didn't want to explain ahah.

 

[KHarvey16]

And stimulated once without knowledge? Yes, it is fine, she is not pursuing this type of thing.

Why is pursuit important? I thought creating demand was?

I'm criminalizing the possession of illegal material. I don't know why are you still flailing that line of thought, but maybe I haven't been clear enough in my past posts.

You mentioned drugs, and this topic it has a close (or comparable) line for the law: if you have a certain quantity of weed in your possession, you are fined for possession of illegal substance and that is it, if you possess an amount that surpass said limit (for a user) even if you argue that it was all for your use, you face other fines.
Got caught with 1 cp file in your cache? They rule it out. 10 files in your cache? That raises suspicion, at the least. 3 files saved in a folder? Well, well, well.

That isn't consistent with your reasoning concerning demand though, unless you are choosing a particular amount of demand that constitutes a crime(which would be weird).

 

[Quagm1r3]

To me it depends. If you're ONLY attracted to young boys or girls then it gives the afflicted person no other way to satisfy their sexual desires without breaking the law (not counting masturbation). I have sympathy for these people.

If you're attracted to sexually developed people as well, however, you have the ability to choose. I have less sympathy for those who have a choice and still choose to harm others.

 

[Prez]

I said it has been linked with hormonal balance, but generally it is a choice commitment. I do have gay friends that managed to have relationships (and sex) with girls (hence my view). Yet they have "commited" to being homosexual only.
I do know there are people that have homosexual preferences since early childhood due to whatever form and causes it might be, but society and rationalization allow (pressure?) to some extent the contortion of said neurological/biological traits.
And if you always had said preference, you know it better than me, and thankfully you were born in an age that you are allowed to be who you are.

I may have been bland with my words in that statement, and I apologize, it's not like I have the notion that homosexuality is a mere deviation.

That's not how it works... Gay people struggle for years before accepting their orientation. For some that struggle includes trying to have a relationship with girls which doesn't work out.

If I had a choice I would be straight (yes, I tried), so you're really offending me there.

 

[cutmeamango]

Why is pursuit important? I thought creating demand was?

That isn't consistent with your reasoning concerning demand though, unless you are choosing a particular amount of demand that constitutes a crime(which would be weird).

I had go back to my posts, and I did say "a distasteful hoarding, that drives the production of said videos.". Yet I've never framed that as the sole reason. In fact, most if not all of my posts refer to the hoarding act.

But why is pursuit important?
Knowingly browsing for that kind of thing = Knowingly driving the production?

I agreed with that one line you estabilished that if someone makes a video with the sole purpose of having as many viewers to come across with his creation his "drive", I did helped, unknowingly, but I did sadly.
But if I'm not a follower of his work, or that line of work, I can't be possibly guilty.

And how come it isn't consistent with my possessing illegal material reasoning and all of my other posts?

I feel like you are just playing around here.

That's not how it works... Gay people struggle for years before accepting their orientation. For some that struggle includes trying to have a relationship with girls which doesn't work out.

If I had a choice I would be straight (yes, I tried), so you're really offending me there.

And I'm sorry for that then. Each person solves their issues as they manage, and I'm sorry to hear that it was a struggle for you.
Maybe my friends aren't really that clear to me, and they make it seem like they were born in accepting families, and had the chance to try it out for themselves.

 

[Monocle]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation classified as a disorder. One of many reasons is that it's inherently harmful to others when acted upon.

 

[CornBurrito]

Should it be illegal to possess a video of someone being murdered?

If you created a demand for videos where people are kidnapped and then brutally murdered then I'd have to say yes.

You would be contributing to underground crime.

 

[KHarvey16]

I had go back to my posts, and I did say "a distasteful hoarding, that drives the production of said videos.". Yet I've never framed that as the sole reason. In fact, most if not all of my posts refer to the hoarding act.

But why is pursuit important?
Knowingly browsing for that kind of thing = Knowingly driving the production?

I agreed with that one line you estabilished that if someone makes a video with the sole purpose of having as many viewers to come across with his creation his "drive", I did helped, unknowingly, but I did sadly.
But if I'm not a follower of his work, or that line of work, I can't be possibly guilty.

And how come it isn't consistent with my possessing illegal material reasoning and all of my other posts?

I feel like you are just playing around here.

If possessing illegal material is the key, then even one image in your cache is illegal, no? If that's all that matters then quantity is of no consequence. Why is someone with 100 saved images more guilty than someone with 1 in their cache? Be explicit.

If you created a demand for videos where people are kidnapped and then brutally murdered then I'd have to say yes.

You would be contributing to underground crime.

So anyone who downloads it should be sent to jail? That doesn't strike you as ridiculous, leaving the punishment of one individual up to the desires or thoughts(no matter how irrational or strange) of another individual?

 

[Soulscribe]

I don't think we know or understand enough about pedophilia to make that call. It's so obscenely taboo that we can't analyze it rationally without having to take a forceful stand against it.

 

[cutmeamango]

If possessing illegal material is the key, then even one image in your cache is illegal, no? If that's all that matters then quantity is of no consequence. Why is someone with 100 saved images more guilty than someone with 1 in their cache? Be explicit.

After all my past posts? Congratulations for "trolling" me this long.

 

[CornBurrito]

So anyone who downloads it should be sent to jail? That doesn't strike you as ridiculous, leaving the punishment of one individual up to the desires or thoughts(no matter how irrational or strange) of another individual?

I don't think jail would necessarily be an appropriate punishment. Maybe counseling or something.

 

[KHarvey16]

After all my past posts? Congratulations for "trolling" me this long.

Explain why consciously possessing is worthy of a crime and unconsciously possessing it is not. You are being vague.

I don't think jail would necessarily be an appropriate punishment. Maybe counseling or something.

And the same for possession of CP?

 

[CornBurrito]

And the same for possession of CP?

I'd say yes initially. If they walked away from counseling and started the same shit up again then jail time may be more appropriate.

Of course I don't think they should ever get a punishment as severe as the one the producer of such material should get.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'd say yes initially. If they walked away from counseling and started the same shit up again then jail time may be more appropriate.

Of course I don't think they should ever get a punishment as severe as the one the producer of such material should get.

And vice-versa, a repeat offender should also face jail time for again viewing videos or images of murder(or...any illegal activity) where it could reasonably shown their consumption had the likely effect of stimulating a sense of demand?

 

[CornBurrito]

And vice-versa, a repeat offender should also face jail time for again viewing videos or images of murder(or...any illegal activity) where it could reasonably shown their consumption had the likely effect of stimulating a sense of demand?

I want to clarify that I'm not talking about say... going on Youtube and viewing a viral video of some girl getting beat up. Or some guy getting murdered by the police.

I'm talking about... if you buy or download a video from an underground site that contains videos of people kidnapping strangers and then brutally murdering them. The uploaders produce said videos because people get off to seeing these murders.

And yes. My answer remains the same.

 

[Devolution]

In various social animals they have sex with younglings, too. 300 years ago it was okay to take 12 or 13 year old girls as wives and that still is okay in some places. Greece's elite used young boys for pleasure. Think of what was done to attractive young boys and girls before there were even rudimentary civilizations out on the wide expanse. When the strongest fucked the prettiest without regard for social norms or the stigma of rape.

My point isn't that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same but that we don't live in nature anymore. We don't shit in the woods and we don't fuck little boys. Bringing what's "natural" into consideration you'd be jacking off in your hands and slinging it at every pretty girl you saw. Shitting down your leg and wiping your itchy ass on a tree. Nature doesn't play into this debate.

It shouldn't but inevitably does because of the crowd that considers homosexuality unnatural, which is totally untrue in nature and humans.

 

[Fusebox]

Being born brain-dead is 'natural' too, but it doesn't mean it isn't a highly abnormal condition.

 

[KHarvey16]

I want to clarify that I'm not talking about say... going on Youtube and viewing a viral video of some girl getting beat up. Or some guy getting murdered by the police.

I'm talking about... if you buy or download a video from an underground site that contains videos of people kidnapping strangers and then brutally murdering them. The uploaders produce said videos because people get off to seeing these murders.

And yes. My answer remains the same.

Ah, well see that changes things. In a case where it can be shown that a person directly contributed to the abuse, for example if they paid or traded for the video, that is a whole different scenario. Such a person is clearly guilty of a crime. I think someone financially supporting the creation of child pornography should be sent to jail on top of counseling or therapy or whatever other method of rehabilitation that is deemed most effective.

I think it should be the burden of the state to show this link. In a situation where someone has paid for videos or joined a private forum to trade these things that burden is easily met. However someone having files on their computer for which it cannot be determined that the acquisition of that material contributed to or encouraged or supported the abuse of a child should not be grounds for prison. Counseling and/or therapy would be the most I could imagine requiring in those circumstances.

Basically, I want resources focused on jailing those who produce and those who directly support those who produce this material.

 

[CornBurrito]

Ah, well see that changes things. In a case where it can be shown that a person directly contributed to the abuse, for example if they paid or traded for the video, that is a whole different scenario. Such a person is clearly guilty of a crime. I think someone financially supporting the creation of child pornography should be sent to jail on top of counseling or therapy or whatever other method of rehabilitation that is deemed most effective.

I think it should be the burden of the state to show this link. In a situation where someone has paid for videos or joined a private forum to trade these things that burden is easily met. However someone having files on their computer for which it cannot be determined that the acquisition of that material contributed to or encouraged or supported the abuse of a child should not be grounds for prison. Counseling and/or therapy would be the most I could imagine requiring in those circumstances.

Basically, I want resources focused on jailing those who produce and those who directly support those who produce this material.

Yeah. I'm mostly thinking about that underground forum that was discovered where people traded CP. There was a thread on GAF about it.

 

[Alebrije]

Pedophilia is wrong not because what adult people think about it. Just go an ask a child if he/she likes it. Is simple math no need to have taboos or stands againts it.

There are simple things that are wrong by nature.

 

[cutmeamango]

Explain why consciously possessing is worthy of a crime and unconsciously possessing it is not. You are being vague.

Okay let's estabilish the parameters for consciously possessing and unconsciously possessing, and this only holds for this exercise:

Unconsciously: Browses 4chan, see (load to cache here) the occasional CP, 3 files, forgets to clear the cache.

Consciously: Browses the same 4chan, see 3 files and save all. (without this, it would hardly estabilish consciousness, unless a great amount of files were in the cache, and he wasn't cleaning it).

Now since both cases lived in the same building, both are raided. Have in mind here purpose doesn't count.

Now why is one worth being tagged as a criminal and the other is not?

Because one hoarded the material.
Of course prosecuting him would tell if he just saved those 3 because he thought it was (sickly) funny, or if he enjoys said material (a deeper raid would eventually cover this).

While the other, even with a deeper raid, would find nothing.
If they did, he would be a criminal too because he jumped from case 1 to case 2.

And as I said, that's why quantity too should weight: to wage the punishment, be a fine or jail.

---
Oh just read your post above KHarvey16.
That's actually what the police does, isn't?
Go for the ring participants. And yes, that should be the utmost priority. Same with drugs, going for the drug cartels.
But in my view, that shouldn't excuse minor hoarders, or minor (but above the limit of possesion ) users.

 

[KHarvey16]

Because one hoarded the material.

And why should that be illegal? I don't understand the significance you're putting in this word, or even how you would define it legally.

 

[Tawpgun]

Depends on the age. If its some baby to elementary school kid... its fucked up.

If its something like 14 and up... I think its understandable, but still obviously wrong in our society. Keep in mind in the past they used to marry at goddamn 12.

 

[cutmeamango]

And why should that be illegal? I don't understand the significance you're putting in this word, or even how you would define it legally.

The only significance is that he is (knowingly and willingly) accumulating/storing illegal material. Don't you think child pornography is illegal?

child/CHīld/
Noun:
1. A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.

por·nog·ra·phy/pôrˈnägrəfē/
Noun: Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity.

Be it a minor infraction, huge infraction, so so infraction, he would be prosecuted accordingly.

 

[KHarvey16]

The only significance is that he is (knowingly and willingly) accumulating/storing illegal material. Don't you think child pornography is illegal?

child/CHīld/
Noun:
1. A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.

por·nog·ra·phy/pôrˈnägrəfē/
Noun: Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity.

Be it a minor infraction, huge infraction, so so infraction, he would be prosecuted accordingly.

I consider child pornography a record of illegal activity. It seems extremely odd to me that a recording, be it video or pictures, could constitute a physical object that is itself illegal. If we consider that illegal, wouldn't we also consider a video of murder or drug use or a traffic violation to be illegal? If not, why not?

 

[Eteric Rice]

Depends on the age. If its some baby to elementary school kid... its fucked up.

If its something like 14 and up... I think its understandable, but still obviously wrong in our society. Keep in mind in the past they used to marry at goddamn 12.

Yeah, this is something I've thought about as well. There are definitely girls who are 14 who are very... grown up. In fact, I believe I've read that girls are reaching maturity faster than they used to for some reason.

I do think we need to look over our laws on this kind of thing, though.

 

[[Clark Gable]]

Pony-gaf should be a crime.

Seriously though, most humans are so fucked up in the head that they don't know what they want anymore. Some people fuck animals for Christ sakes, some people fuck cars, some people look at themselves in mirrors and think about fucking themselves in the ass. Who am I to dictate someones sexuality. In my eyes everyone is fucked up, just don't go around hunting for little boys or girls. Or I'll kick your fucking teeth in if i see you.

 

[cutmeamango]

I consider child pornography a record of illegal activity. It seems extremely odd to me that a recording, be it video or pictures, could constitute a physical object that is itself illegal. If we consider that illegal, wouldn't we also consider a video of murder or drug use or a traffic violation to be illegal? If not, why not?

Well we are back to the original question! I guess we will always disagree here, but I believe every material or reproduction made with the intent of propaganding criminal activities (vague I know, but I believe you understand my point from all my past posts) should be criminal.

Video of a murder: Talked thru already.

Video of drug use: This one is the definition of slippery slope! I (and that's just me) think that beer advertising should be banned like cigarettes advertisements were.
But since most drugs present no direct harm to others, it would be difficult to say a video of drug use should be illegal, my judgment would be directly affected by its presentation, I guess.

Traffic violation: Actually there were a few kids here in Brazil arrested for doing vids and posting on youtube, riding their bikes in traffic dangerously and bragging about it on social networks.
So definetely, if it is in the same aspect.

 

[KHarvey16]

Well we are back to the original question! I guess we will always disagree here, but I believe every material or reproduction made with the intent of propaganding criminal activities (vague I know, but I believe you understand my point from all my past posts) should be criminal.

Video of a murder: Talked thru already.

Video of drug use: This one is the definition of slippery slope! I (and that's just me) think that beer advertising should be banned like cigarettes advertisements were.
But since most drugs present no direct harm to others, it would be difficult to say a video of drug use should be illegal, my judgment would be directly affected by its presentation, I guess.

Traffic violation: Actually there were a few kids here in Brazil arrested for doing vids and posting on youtube, riding their bikes in traffic dangerously and bragging about it on social networks.
So definetely, if it is in the same aspect.

Yes, we will definitely not agree on this point. Also I'd point out that those kids were likely punished for the actions in the tape, not for making the tape(and I'm sure no one who may have downloaded it was punished).