So it's a felony to possess it, and it's a felony to not tell law enforcement that you possess it. hmm. I think I'll risk possession w/o disclosure.

HenryFnord: it's a felony to not tell law enforcement that you possess it

Doesn't that violate the fifth amendment?

but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized

That guy's almost as sick as the child rapist.

GBI says it's a felony to have child porn unless you share it with them.

ZAZ: GBI says it's a felony to have child porn unless you share it with them.

Superior headline. Would +1

Why do I get the feeling that /b/ had something to do with this.

/for teh lulz.

It's a USB line, I'll show you later.

"But if they keep the video on their computer, or share it with anyone, Brown and Milka said it's likely going to be there permanently, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted."

lol.

Understanding of computers fail.

More along the lines of "it's possible that it could be recovered off of the disk, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted, with the application of several thousand $ worth of computer forensic techniques and a lot of time."

Interesting that the simple act of receiving the e-mail could count as possessing the file even if you don't open the e-mail.

Can you even be prosecuted for being sent unsolicited illegal material if you dispose of said illegal material?

It might be a felony to discuss it.

"Hello, 911?? ZOMG I HAS TEH CHILD PR0NZ!!!1!"

Inflatable Rhetoric: It might be a felony to discuss it.

brb, someone at the door.

Pinko_Commie:
Can you even be prosecuted for being sent unsolicited illegal material if you dispose of said illegal material?

funny story about that (new window)

FTFA
but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized. That is a crime, yes.

I always thought the child was victimized when the video was made, not when people watched it. Of course you prosecute those who watch such things, so it discourages such things being made, but it's not as if the child feels pain every time someone watches the video. It's not their voodoo doll.

"but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."

But if they keep the video on their computer, or share it with anyone, Brown and Milka said it's likely going to be there permanently, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted.

Really? You guys sure about that?

I really can't wait to hear from the Linux users about how they can totally erase their hard drives and no cop will ever catch them.

"but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

The only reason it's illegal is to satisfy all the handwringing "Think of the children" types in power, and the sheeple that vote for them.

FTA:

"Anyone who receives the e-mail should, according to Brown and Milka, leave it unopened on the computer and call the GBI immediately. That way, agents may be able to trace where it came from, and will then take it off of the computer so there is no trace of it. arrest you for a picture of a 17 year old wearing a bathing suit in your browser cache."

FTFT

"The FBI put out a wanted poster of the man -- click here to see it on fbi.gov. "

YEAH RIGHT! Like Im falling for that mr. article. Youre just trying to get ME to look at the child pr0nz too!

notoverit: FTA:

"Anyone who receives the e-mail should, according to Brown and Milka, leave it unopened on the computer and call the GBI immediately. That way, agents may be able to trace where it came from, and will then take it off of the computer so there is no trace of it. arrest you for a picture of a 17 year old wearing a bathing suit in your browser cache."

FTFT

That too.

Of course, i'm sure they won't do anything else. They will only take that one email, they couldn't possibly look through any other images on your hard drive or in your email. . .

The FBI put out a wanted poster of the man -- click here to see it on fbi.gov.

"These are images [on the wanted poster] that came directly from the video which has been circulating," Brown said.

Then the FBI agent laughed and said "muhaha if you view that poster you're in possession of child porn!!1! I did it for the lulz"

18 posts in, and no pedobear...
/ashamed

adamgreeney: notoverit: FTA:

"Anyone who receives the e-mail should, according to Brown and Milka, leave it unopened on the computer and call the GBI immediately. That way, agents may be able to trace where it came from, and will then take it off of the computer so there is no trace of it. arrest you for a picture of a 17 year old wearing a bathing suit in your browser cache."

FTFT

That too.

Of course, i'm sure they won't do anything else. They will only take that one email, they couldn't possibly look through any other images on your hard drive or in your email. . .

You can trust me. I'm from the government.

deevo: Pinko_Commie:
Can you even be prosecuted for being sent unsolicited illegal material if you dispose of said illegal material?

funny story about that (new window)

Nice one. Shame the link at the bottom doesn't work. I would have been interested to read that.

Dammit, grandma, stop sending me child porn.

SkittlesAreYum: FTFA
but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized. That is a crime, yes.

I always thought the child was victimized when the video was made, not when people watched it. Of course you prosecute those who watch such things, so it discourages such things being made, but it's not as if the child feels pain every time someone watches the video. It's not their voodoo doll.

So, if they punish the guy who made the video, then it's OK to watch? Can you watch it over and over?

but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized

Uh, no. Not really. WTF is this shiat?

I think whoever made the video should be strung up, and whoever enjoys watching such a thing should put themselves out of their misery straight away, but this statement is just farking ridiculous.

wh0mprat: SkittlesAreYum: FTFA
but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized. That is a crime, yes.

I always thought the child was victimized when the video was made, not when people watched it. Of course you prosecute those who watch such things, so it discourages such things being made, but it's not as if the child feels pain every time someone watches the video. It's not their voodoo doll.

So, if they punish the guy who made the video, then it's OK to watch? Can you watch it over and over?

Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

HenryFnord
So it's a felony to possess it, and it's a felony to not tell law enforcement that you possess it. hmm. I think I'll risk possession w/o disclosure.

Years ago in high school (1995), I was in this after-school class called "Introduction to Law Enforcement". This was back in the old AOL days when all you had to do was enter into a chat room, and people would just start e-mailing you pron, and USENET was pretty lenient as well. We discussed legal topics and how cops enforce them. The subject of child porn came up.

His off-the-record-advice plain and simple was that unless you were like a contractor repairing a PC with a company to back you up, if you ever run across it just delete it and forget you ever saw it. If you report it, you'd probably be investigated too, and the hassle just wasn't worth it. At that time, authorities were well aware of the growing epidemic, and were still hammering out game-plans on how to prosecute people. But all the while were still investigating individuals and the trading rings to try and find the sources of the material.

Just like other habitual offenders: you might not catch them right now, but you will soon enough once they break the law again. So just step back, and let the authorities do their jobs.

mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

So if you randomly got an email with this video attached and you watched it you'd be creating a demand for activity that victimizes children? Please explain.

Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

I think the market has already been created. Don't you?

Pinko_Commie: Interesting that the simple act of receiving the e-mail could count as possessing the file even if you don't open the e-mail.

The new trend of kiddie pornographers: send copies of all their stuff to the state legislatures email addresses, thus promptly getting them all arrested.
Brilliant!

well, here's a good article (new window) about a honeypot. Because "4yo_suck.rar" is such an obvious and damning name.

SkittlesAreYum: Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

I think you're taking a very concrete view of victimization.

If there were a video of YOU getting ass-raped floating around on the internets, would you be OK with the idea that thousands of mastubating perverts are wathing it every day? Enjoying your humiiation and victimzation? What if it happened when you were a kid and it's been out there for years? Woudln't you want it GONE? Or would you be OK with it? What if it were your kid? Would you mind if people watched it? After all, they're not vicimizing your kid.

That's what they mean by vicitimized. Knowing that people are watching it and jerking it to a video of the worst time of their lives is victimization.

But you're tougher than that. You wouldn't mind.

Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.
A market implies that you're buying. I'm against paying people to commit crimes, if that's what you mean. People who get emailed it, or people who pirate(does such a thing happen?) cp are innocent though.

ReverendJasen: Pinko_Commie: Interesting that the simple act of receiving the e-mail could count as possessing the file even if you don't open the e-mail.

The new trend of kiddie pornographers: send copies of all their stuff to the state legislatures email addresses, thus promptly getting them all arrested.
Brilliant!

And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Wow, a lot of people feeding the trolls in here.

notoverit: So if you randomly got an email with this video attached and you watched it you'd be creating a demand for activity that victimizes children? Please explain.

No, but if you actively seek it, you are creating a demand.

Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

download music: you're ruining the industry
download child porn: you're creating a market

XFD, corporate America

unfortunately, most child pornography (created by Westerners) is simply a record of molestation. Sure, there are prostitution rings in Thailand and orphanages in Russia, but I'm not sure if there's an actual solution to absolutely amoral people who will do anything to other human beings for money, so I don't know if we can pinpoint it as a child pornography problem.

Ant: You're creating a market for such stuff.

The people who are actively seeking it out and (I'm guessing) paying for it are, yes.

Joe Shmoe who accidentally runs across it is not, even if he watches it before moving on. I think that's what they're getting at here. Er.. I hope so at least.

Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

It's going to be out there anyways, unless you're specifically requesting it the file already exists, independent of you.

mister aj: A market implies that you're buying.

Payment could be in the form of notoriety.

wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

notoverit: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

So if you randomly got an email with this video attached and you watched it you'd be creating a demand for activity that victimizes children? Please explain.

If you leave a loophole like that, everyone will use it. Besides, you can be charged with receiving stolen property even if you didn't know it was stolen.

wh0mprat: SkittlesAreYum: Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

I think you're taking a very concrete view of victimization.

If there were a video of YOU getting ass-raped floating around on the internets, would you be OK with the idea that thousands of mastubating perverts are wathing it every day? Enjoying your humiiation and victimzation? What if it happened when you were a kid and it's been out there for years? Woudln't you want it GONE? Or would you be OK with it? What if it were your kid? Would you mind if people watched it? After all, they're not vicimizing your kid.

That's what they mean by vicitimized. Knowing that people are watching it and jerking it to a video of the worst time of their lives is victimization.

But you're tougher than that. You wouldn't mind.

Wanting it gone and wanting everyone that watches it put in prison for 5 years or more are two completely different things.

And just because other people watch the worst time of your life does not mean you can initiate a scorched earth policy of imprisoning hundreds/thousands of people. There are plenty of blooper videos available as well as videos of violent crime that somehow don't receive the same "revictimization" theory.

The re-vicitimization theory was invented to justify the increasingly harsh CP possession laws after the actual market for such filth was nearly eliminated. You just happen to buy into the BS.

Interesting that the simple act of receiving the e-mail could count as possessing the file even if you don't open the e-mail.

I think they're bluffing. I don't believe that simply receiving an massively-forwarded email would make a strong case.

The Supreme Court case Jacobson v. US involved a man who was repeatedly sent offers for child porn until he finally gave in and ordered something. The offers came from the government. The court said that was entrapment -- he knowingly ordered something illegal but the government applied too much pressure to get him to do it. That is what law enforcement did before the net let officers hang out in chat rooms and pretend to be 14 year old girls.

Inflatable Rhetoric: Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

I think the market has already been created. Don't you?

The 'market' is not an amorphous blob out on the internets. It's real people clicking on links and consuming the material. Don't add to it.

DRC500free: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

I think the market has already been created. Don't you?

The 'market' is not an amorphous blob out on the internets. It's real people clicking on links and consuming the material. Don't add to it.

Ok, I won't. Problem solved. Next?

If someone sends that video to you, you are guilty of the most serious crime in the land. Your only alternative is to kill yourself.

wh0mprat: it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent

It may do that, etc. Too much wharrgarble in my coffee.

wh0mprat: DRC500free: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

So it's some combination of titillation and victimization that's required? And some marketing?

TaxiDriver: If someone sends that video to you, you are guilty of the most serious crime in the land. and you actually enjoy watching it, your sickness is incurable. Your only alternative is to kill yourself.

FTFY

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

I think the market has already been created. Don't you?

The 'market' is not an amorphous blob out on the internets. It's real people clicking on links and consuming the material. Don't add to it.

Then you're changing the definition of a market. Real people clicking on links and "consuming" the material is not necessarily creating a demand, and throwing people in prison just in case they are creating a demand is preposterous. That's like throwing everyone in prison that buys something off of ebay just in case they are buying stolen property.

When a law enforcement officer watches this material is he re-victimizing the victim? Is he creating a demand?

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: DRC500free: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

So it's some combination of titillation and victimization that's required? And some marketing?

Yeah - the courts take into account whether the work has some redeeming values or appeals only to the prurient interest. A vid of a 2 year old with a mouth full of cock has no redeeming value and appeals only to the prurient interest. 9/11 was a pivotal moment in American history. Do you see any redeeming value there?

wh0mprat: DRC500free: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

Incorrect. The definition of child porn has nothing to do with the intent to titillate. It is only concerned with a visual depiction of sexual explicit conduct.

notoverit: wh0mprat: SkittlesAreYum: Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

I think you're taking a very concrete view of victimization.

If there were a video of YOU getting ass-raped floating around on the internets, would you be OK with the idea that thousands of mastubating perverts are wathing it every day? Enjoying your humiiation and victimzation? What if it happened when you were a kid and it's been out there for years? Woudln't you want it GONE? Or would you be OK with it? What if it were your kid? Would you mind if people watched it? After all, they're not vicimizing your kid.

That's what they mean by vicitimized. Knowing that people are watching it and jerking it to a video of the worst time of their lives is victimization.

But you're tougher than that. You wouldn't mind.

Wanting it gone and wanting everyone that watches it put in prison for 5 years or more are two completely different things.

And just because other people watch the worst time of your life does not mean you can initiate a scorched earth policy of imprisoning hundreds/thousands of people. There are plenty of blooper videos available as well as videos of violent crime that somehow don't receive the same "revictimization" theory.

The re-vicitimization theory was invented to justify the increasingly harsh CP possession laws after the actual market for such filth was nearly eliminated. You just happen to buy into the BS.

I don't 'buy into' the BS. i actually understand their reasons and agree with them.

So again, if your 5 year old were abused on camera, would you like people to watch it? You'd be OK with that?

wh0mprat: DRC500free: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

The 9/11 attack was more horrific than any one act of child molestation, and was watched by more people than any child pornography has been. The footage is intended to record an illegal act for future viewing. If no one had any interest in watching the footage, the attack itself wouldn't have been conducted.

So why does this "creating demand" logic apply to child molestation, but not mass murder of civilians?

notoverit: Incorrect. The definition of child porn has nothing to do with the intent to titillate. It is only concerned with a visual depiction of sexual explicit conduct.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Besides, then why aren't renaissance paintingsd of naked cherubs child porn?

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: DRC500free: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

So it's some combination of titillation and victimization that's required? And some marketing?

Yeah - the courts take into account whether the work has some redeeming values or appeals only to the prurient interest. A vid of a 2 year old with a mouth full of cock has no redeeming value and appeals only to the prurient interest. 9/11 was a pivotal moment in American history. Do you see any redeeming value there?

You are thinking of the definition of obscenity, not child pornography. Child pornography does not have to be obscene to fit the definition.

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: DRC500free: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

So it's some combination of titillation and victimization that's required? And some marketing?

Yeah - the courts take into account whether the work has some redeeming values or appeals only to the prurient interest. A vid of a 2 year old with a mouth full of cock has no redeeming value and appeals only to the prurient interest. 9/11 was a pivotal moment in American history. Do you see any redeeming value there?

The courts haven't had much success defining "prurient", and attempts to legislate morality have failed.

Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

Inflatable Rhetoric: And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Same way they can possess drugs.

Inflatable Rhetoric: Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

hardly makes it worse.

wh0mprat: notoverit: Incorrect. The definition of child porn has nothing to do with the intent to titillate. It is only concerned with a visual depiction of sexual explicit conduct.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Besides, then why aren't renaissance paintingsd of naked cherubs child porn?

Because paintings aren't depictions of sexual conduct involving (or indistinguishable from) actual children.

I'm talking about the federal definition of child pornography. Which definition would you like to use?

notoverit: When a law enforcement officer watches this material is he re-victimizing the victim? Is he creating a demand?

I think we're arguing two different things here. Nobody here (as far as I know) actually thinks that the child is re-victimized by people accidentally watching the video. What I'm saying is people who actively seek this stuff are creating demand, even if they're not paying money to the creator.

People can receive encouragement in many forms that aren't monetary. Think of people who write freeware software, or bands who post their music for free download.

notoverit: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: DRC500free: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

So it's some combination of titillation and victimization that's required? And some marketing?

Yeah - the courts take into account whether the work has some redeeming values or appeals only to the prurient interest. A vid of a 2 year old with a mouth full of cock has no redeeming value and appeals only to the prurient interest. 9/11 was a pivotal moment in American history. Do you see any redeeming value there?

You are thinking of the definition of obscenity, not child pornography. Child pornography does not have to be obscene to fit the definition.

Ah, right. Sorry, I got too enthusiastic.

Then the answer is simple. 9/11 was not child porn, therefore no parallels should be drawn.

notoverit: wh0mprat: notoverit: Incorrect. The definition of child porn has nothing to do with the intent to titillate. It is only concerned with a visual depiction of sexual explicit conduct.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Besides, then why aren't renaissance paintingsd of naked cherubs child porn?

Because paintings aren't depictions of sexual conduct involving (or indistinguishable from) actual children.

I'm talking about the federal definition of child pornography. Which definition would you like to use?

I'm really just focused on pics and videos made by slimeballs to sell to other slimeballs. Hell, I'd like to make making those videos a capital offence.

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Same way they can possess drugs.

And often some of the drugs disappear.

Possessing drugs and stolen property is different from seeing things, too.

Ant: notoverit: When a law enforcement officer watches this material is he re-victimizing the victim? Is he creating a demand?

I think we're arguing two different things here. Nobody here (as far as I know) actually thinks that the child is re-victimized by people accidentally watching the video. What I'm saying is people who actively seek this stuff are creating demand, even if they're not paying money to the creator.

People can receive encouragement in many forms that aren't monetary. Think of people who write freeware software, or bands who post their music for free download.

That's fine. Then we can agree that simple possession shouldn't be against the law, since there is nothing to prove that they have created any demand. Right?

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

hardly makes it worse.

It doesn't? Going to jail for receiving an email is OK with you?

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

hardly makes it worse.

It doesn't? Going to jail for receiving an email is OK with you?

If so, we have no need to discuss this, or anything else, further.

notoverit: Because paintings aren't depictions of sexual conduct involving (or indistinguishable from) actual children.

Depictions of imaginary children having sex are illegal.

http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

hardly makes it worse.

It doesn't? Going to jail for receiving an email is OK with you?

I suspect he be trollin'

wh0mprat: So again, if your 5 year old were abused on camera, would you like people to watch it? You'd be OK with that?

I didn't realize the parents of the children were the victims here.

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Same way they can possess drugs.

And often some of the drugs disappear.

Possessing drugs and stolen property is different from seeing things, too.

I disagree, but then, that's what Fark is for. You think its OK to watch child porn and I do not.

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

hardly makes it worse.

It doesn't? Going to jail for receiving an email is OK with you?

The more perverts off the street, the better. Maybe some prison rape will teach them some compassion for the victims.

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Same way they can possess drugs.

And often some of the drugs disappear.

Possessing drugs and stolen property is different from seeing things, too.

I disagree, but then, that's what Fark is for. You think its OK to watch child porn and I do not.

I never said that. Speak for yourself, not for me.

wyrlss: wh0mprat: So again, if your 5 year old were abused on camera, would you like people to watch it? You'd be OK with that?

I didn't realize the parents of the children were the victims here.

Just trying to find a shred of compassion in the guy who's ok with watching child porn.

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

hardly makes it worse.

It doesn't? Going to jail for receiving an email is OK with you?

The more perverts off the street, the better. Maybe some prison rape will teach them some compassion for the victims.

OK, so if you receive one of these emails, you'll surrender and take your punishment, right?

I'm against child pr0n. I never video tape myself when I'm molesting small children.

maxspeed: I'm against child pr0n. I never video tape myself when I'm molesting small children.

Where's gorgor when you need him?

wh0mprat:
footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

Makes no difference, the effect is the same.

Frankly, even worse than child porn are videos, readily available on Youtube, Break, LiveLeak, and other places, of actual death footage. People getting instantly killed. Heck, go and buy Ken Burn's "The War" at your local Best Buy to see constant graphic footage of people actually getting blown away.

Given that there is no shortage of people with death fetishes, who love to masturbate furiously to people getting their brains blown out--just imagine if the footage was of your son. Knowing that his moment of indignity and humiliation as he takes a bullet to the brains is being watched, cheered, oogled, and masturbated to must be a total hell on earth. Yet it's entirely legal.

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Same way they can possess drugs.

And often some of the drugs disappear.

Possessing drugs and stolen property is different from seeing things, too.

I disagree, but then, that's what Fark is for. You think its OK to watch child porn and I do not.

I never said that. Speak for yourself, not for me.

So you do agree with me then. Posessing child porn should be a crime. Excellent.

notoverit: Then we can agree that simple possession shouldn't be against the law

Simple possession? No, that should not be enough to fark up someone's life forever. If it can be shown that you were actively looking for it? Yes, that should be illegal.

Ant: TaxiDriver: If someone sends that video to you, you are guilty of the most serious crime in the land. and you actually enjoy watching it, your sickness is incurable. Your only alternative is to kill yourself.

FTFY

Sparky the law does not care if you enjoy it or intend anything it will just f you up

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

hardly makes it worse.

It doesn't? Going to jail for receiving an email is OK with you?

The more perverts off the street, the better. Maybe some prison rape will teach them some compassion for the victims.

OK, so if you receive one of these emails, you'll surrender and take your punishment, right?

Yeah, I'm not dumb enough to open it. A lot of people are in jail for doing dumb things, you know.

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Same way they can possess drugs.

And often some of the drugs disappear.

Possessing drugs and stolen property is different from seeing things, too.

I disagree, but then, that's what Fark is for. You think its OK to watch child porn and I do not.

I never said that. Speak for yourself, not for me.

So you do agree with me then. Posessing child porn should be a crime. Excellent.

If you want to know what I think, you should ask.

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

hardly makes it worse.

It doesn't? Going to jail for receiving an email is OK with you?

The more perverts off the street, the better. Maybe some prison rape will teach them some compassion for the victims.

OK, so if you receive one of these emails, you'll surrender and take your punishment, right?

Yeah, I'm not dumb enough to open it. A lot of people are in jail for doing dumb things, you know.

But it might not be labeled. It's still possession. Then will you volunteer for prison?

wh0mprat: notoverit: Incorrect. The definition of child porn has nothing to do with the intent to titillate. It is only concerned with a visual depiction of sexual explicit conduct.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Besides, then why aren't renaissance paintingsd of naked cherubs child porn?

Why is a grandmother arrested for taking a pic of her grandchild in a tub as a child pornographer ?

mitEj: wh0mprat: notoverit: Incorrect. The definition of child porn has nothing to do with the intent to titillate. It is only concerned with a visual depiction of sexual explicit conduct.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Besides, then why aren't renaissance paintingsd of naked cherubs child porn?

Why is a grandmother arrested for taking a pic of her grandchild in a tub as a child pornographer ?

She may be charged but she won't necessarily be convicted.

wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: So again, if your 5 year old were abused on camera, would you like people to watch it? You'd be OK with that?

I didn't realize the parents of the children were the victims here.

Just trying to find a shred of compassion in the guy who's ok with watching child porn.

All snark and kiddin aside, I think the parents are also a victim here. Mostly because, well, it's their children.

DRC500free: http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court

See, this is where it gets tricky. You are correct, in a way, but what that man pled guilty to didn't fall under the regular child pornography law. It was under the PROTECT Act, which actually uses (part of) the obscenity definition to make certain visual depictions works illegal to buy, send or receive. Those works would not have been illegal had the man only possessed them in his home (unlike CP); it was necessary to show that he received them in the mail or they were transported in some way. Which is of course ridiculous since he had to get them in his home somehow.

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Victimizing people who receive something they didn't order and don't want does not improve the situation.

hardly makes it worse.

It doesn't? Going to jail for receiving an email is OK with you?

The more perverts off the street, the better. Maybe some prison rape will teach them some compassion for the victims.

OK, so if you receive one of these emails, you'll surrender and take your punishment, right?

Yeah, I'm not dumb enough to open it. A lot of people are in jail for doing dumb things, you know.

But it might not be labeled. It's still possession. Then will you volunteer for prison?

I imagine so, yes. Be nice to take some time off work.

DRC500free: notoverit: Because paintings aren't depictions of sexual conduct involving (or indistinguishable from) actual children.

Depictions of imaginary children having sex are illegal.

http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court

So this is why Hentai mangas claim that all girls are 18... Yet still in high school.

/Tard hentai?

CygnusDarius: wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: So again, if your 5 year old were abused on camera, would you like people to watch it? You'd be OK with that?

I didn't realize the parents of the children were the victims here.

Just trying to find a shred of compassion in the guy who's ok with watching child porn.

All snark and kiddin aside, I think the parents are also a victim here. Mostly because, well, it's their children.

All snark and kiddin aside, what percentage of child molestation cases are not from a relative?

wh0mprat: Yeah, I'm not dumb enough to open it. A lot of people are in jail for doing dumb things, you know.

And if don't know what it is, and it comes from what you'd consider a trusted source? You open the email and suddenly see some pics of kids being abused. That's not criminal, that makes you a victim as well.

I'm just waiting for one of these email worms to start doing this. I'm surprised one hasn't already.

wh0mprat: mitEj: wh0mprat: notoverit: Incorrect. The definition of child porn has nothing to do with the intent to titillate. It is only concerned with a visual depiction of sexual explicit conduct.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Besides, then why aren't renaissance paintingsd of naked cherubs child porn?

Why is a grandmother arrested for taking a pic of her grandchild in a tub as a child pornographer ?

She may be charged but she won't necessarily be convicted.


you clearly do not read the articles here.

That was a case posted her 3 months ago, and conviction or not your life is effectively ruined.

wyrlss: All snark and kiddin aside, what percentage of child molestation cases are not from a relative?

And that is the sound of me losing my hope in humanity, because those are some scary-ass numbers.

/Pedo families outnumber pedo-everyone else.

CygnusDarius: wyrlss: All snark and kiddin aside, what percentage of child molestation cases are not from a relative?

And that is the sound of me losing my hope in humanity, because those are some scary-ass numbers.

/Pedo families outnumber pedo-everyone else.

On a much lighter note remember "its not cheating if its your dog"

But yes the fact that the vast majority of abuse is perpetrated by those whos job it is to protect the children is a sad sad thing.

mitEj: wh0mprat: mitEj: wh0mprat: notoverit: Incorrect. The definition of child porn has nothing to do with the intent to titillate. It is only concerned with a visual depiction of sexual explicit conduct.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Besides, then why aren't renaissance paintingsd of naked cherubs child porn?

Why is a grandmother arrested for taking a pic of her grandchild in a tub as a child pornographer ?

She may be charged but she won't necessarily be convicted.


you clearly do not read the articles here.

That was a case posted her 3 months ago, and conviction or not your life is effectively ruined.

That'll teach her to take pictures of naked children, won't it?

mitEj: CygnusDarius: wyrlss: All snark and kiddin aside, what percentage of child molestation cases are not from a relative?

And that is the sound of me losing my hope in humanity, because those are some scary-ass numbers.

/Pedo families outnumber pedo-everyone else.

On a much lighter note remember "its not cheating if its your dog"

But yes the fact that the vast majority of abuse is perpetrated by those whos job it is to protect the children is a sad sad thing.

But once the video's been made, it's OK to have a copy and watch it, according to some of our learned colleagues! 'What's the harm?', they said.

wh0mprat: That'll teach her to take pictures of naked children, won't it?

I think she already knows how.

notoverit: So if you randomly got an email with this video attached and you watched it you'd be creating a demand for activity that victimizes children? Please explain.

By this logic, you'd have to make any picture or video depicting a crime to be illegal.

And I personally find looking at pr0n and then whacking it temporarily gets rid of my horniness.

blubaldnuglee: 18 posts in, and no pedobear...
/ashamed

wh0mprat: mitEj: CygnusDarius: wyrlss: All snark and kiddin aside, what percentage of child molestation cases are not from a relative?

And that is the sound of me losing my hope in humanity, because those are some scary-ass numbers.

/Pedo families outnumber pedo-everyone else.

On a much lighter note remember "its not cheating if its your dog"

But yes the fact that the vast majority of abuse is perpetrated by those whos job it is to protect the children is a sad sad thing.

But once the video's been made, it's OK to have a copy and watch it, according to some of our learned colleagues! 'What's the harm?', they said.

2/10. You're trying too hard now.

wyrlss: wh0mprat: That'll teach her to take pictures of naked children, won't it?

I think she already knows how.

heh. Yeah, I bet she does.

Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that. I just want to make sure that all the passive consumers of this filth are hauled up in front of a judge. If you really were tricked into possession, you should be found not guilty. But I'd rather have the authorities have the power to deal with these cases than stand helplessly by.

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Same way they can possess drugs.

And often some of the drugs disappear.

Possessing drugs and stolen property is different from seeing things, too.

I disagree, but then, that's what Fark is for. You think its OK to watch child porn and I do not.

I never said that. Speak for yourself, not for me.

So you do agree with me then. Posessing child porn should be a crime. Excellent.

If you want to know what I think, you should ask.

So you don't think it shold be a crime?

wh0mprat: Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that.

So you think the current US laws regarding child pornography are too harsh? You support lessening penalties for "consumers" of child porn?

Are you pro-child porn or just anti-child?

notoverit: wh0mprat: mitEj: CygnusDarius: wyrlss: All snark and kiddin aside, what percentage of child molestation cases are not from a relative?

And that is the sound of me losing my hope in humanity, because those are some scary-ass numbers.

/Pedo families outnumber pedo-everyone else.

On a much lighter note remember "its not cheating if its your dog"

But yes the fact that the vast majority of abuse is perpetrated by those whos job it is to protect the children is a sad sad thing.

But once the video's been made, it's OK to have a copy and watch it, according to some of our learned colleagues! 'What's the harm?', they said.

2/10. You're trying too hard now.

Really? Too hard? You think it's Ok to possess, I dunno, gigs and gigs of the stuff. Because it's a victimless crime, right?
notoverit: That's fine. Then we can agree that simple possession shouldn't be against the law, since there is nothing to prove that they have created any demand. Right?


If posession shouldn't be against the law, then I jhave to assume you're ok with it.

I am surprised that excuse hasn't been used more often. "I was trying to help identify the people in the videos"

/we need a "pedo bear need's your help to identify predators" pic
//no skills here

CygnusDarius: So this is why Hentai mangas claim that all girls are 18... Yet still in high school.

Uh, most high school seniors turn 18 during the school year.

notoverit: wh0mprat: Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that.

So you think the current US laws regarding child pornography are too harsh? You support lessening penalties for "consumers" of child porn?

Are you pro-child porn or just anti-child?

No, I'm advocating cases be judged on their merits, and that we leave these matters in the hands of the judges, not the legislators. If it was an accidental download, fine. Hop you learned your lesson. If you're a voracious collecot of such filth, I hope they lock you up and throw away the key.

wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: That'll teach her to take pictures of naked children, won't it?

I think she already knows how.

heh. Yeah, I bet she does.

Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that. I just want to make sure that all the passive consumers of this filth are hauled up in front of a judge. If you really were tricked into possession, you should be found not guilty. But I'd rather have the authorities have the power to deal with these cases than stand helplessly by.

Exactly, and I really think this site (new window) backs you up here.

wyrlss: wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: That'll teach her to take pictures of naked children, won't it?

I think she already knows how.

heh. Yeah, I bet she does.

Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that. I just want to make sure that all the passive consumers of this filth are hauled up in front of a judge. If you really were tricked into possession, you should be found not guilty. But I'd rather have the authorities have the power to deal with these cases than stand helplessly by.

Exactly, and I really think this site (new window) backs you up here.

Like I'm going to click on that.

wh0mprat: Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that. I just want to make sure that all the passive consumers of this filth are hauled up in front of a judge. If you really were tricked into possession, you should be found not guilty. But I'd rather have the authorities have the power to deal with these cases than stand helplessly by.fark that shiat.
Whether convicted or not, this will ruin a life. End a career, a marriage, make the person a pariah in the community, etc.

Simply receiving an email--no matter what it contains--should never be a crime because you cannot control what gets sent to you.
Allowing for this will make abuse of the system simple. Don't like your coworker? Photoshop some homemade kiddie pron, send it to his email account, make an anonymous tip to the authorities, watch his life self-destruct. There needs to be safeguards to prevent abuse, and not just this "OMG-protect-children-at-all-costs" hysteria we currently live under.

ReverendJasen: wh0mprat: Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that. I just want to make sure that all the passive consumers of this filth are hauled up in front of a judge. If you really were tricked into possession, you should be found not guilty. But I'd rather have the authorities have the power to deal with these cases than stand helplessly by.fark that shiat.
Whether convicted or not, this will ruin a life. End a career, a marriage, make the person a pariah in the community, etc.

Simply receiving an email--no matter what it contains--should never be a crime because you cannot control what gets sent to you.
Allowing for this will make abuse of the system simple. Don't like your coworker? Photoshop some homemade kiddie pron, send it to his email account, make an anonymous tip to the authorities, watch his life self-destruct. There needs to be safeguards to prevent abuse, and not just this "OMG-protect-children-at-all-costs" hysteria we currently live under.

yeah, i'm not too worried about what your friends will think of you, you know?

I want everyone terrified to open videos they don't know are safe.

As I said, I think the courts are that safeguard. Or do you NOT want the cops to invrstigate potential crimes?

wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: That'll teach her to take pictures of naked children, won't it?

I think she already knows how.

heh. Yeah, I bet she does.

Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that. I just want to make sure that all the passive consumers of this filth are hauled up in front of a judge. If you really were tricked into possession, you should be found not guilty. But I'd rather have the authorities have the power to deal with these cases than stand helplessly by.

Exactly, and I really think this site (new window) backs you up here.

Like I'm going to click on that.

C'mon man, I'm behind you here one hundred percent. You just kind of had some [citation needed] points that I, in my infinite mercy, pointed you to a citation for.
I am benevolent and helpful.

html fail :(

wyrlss: wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: That'll teach her to take pictures of naked children, won't it?

I think she already knows how.

heh. Yeah, I bet she does.

Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that. I just want to make sure that all the passive consumers of this filth are hauled up in front of a judge. If you really were tricked into possession, you should be found not guilty. But I'd rather have the authorities have the power to deal with these cases than stand helplessly by.

Exactly, and I really think this site (new window) backs you up here.

Like I'm going to click on that.

C'mon man, I'm behind you here one hundred percent. You just kind of had some [citation needed] points that I, in my infinite mercy, pointed you to a citation for.
I am benevolent and helpful.

I don't doubt that :)

wh0mprat: yeah, i'm not too worried about what your friends will think of you, you know?

I want everyone terrified to open videos they don't know are safe.

Friends? The loss of a career and a marriage is no worse than a few miffed friends, eh?

And no, we should not be terrified to open our farking email. We should be terrified to go online and look for this crap, terrified to save some on our computer, terrified to ask someone for it--but not terrified that we might get some by accident or with malicious intent.

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Same way they can possess drugs.

And often some of the drugs disappear.

Possessing drugs and stolen property is different from seeing things, too.

I disagree, but then, that's what Fark is for. You think its OK to watch child porn and I do not.

I never said that. Speak for yourself, not for me.

So you do agree with me then. Posessing child porn should be a crime. Excellent.

If you want to know what I think, you should ask.

So you don't think it shold be a crime?

You need to learn how to ask questions. "Do you think it should be a crime?" is how I would do it.

I don't think inadvertent, unintentional reception or possession of anything should be a crime.

I don't think having to deal with the legal system is as simple as you make it sound. I've done that several times in civil matters. It takes up your time and your money.

ReverendJasen: wh0mprat: yeah, i'm not too worried about what your friends will think of you, you know?

I want everyone terrified to open videos they don't know are safe.

Friends? The loss of a career and a marriage is no worse than a few miffed friends, eh?

And no, we should not be terrified to open our farking email. We should be terrified to go online and look for this crap, terrified to save some on our computer, terrified to ask someone for it--but not terrified that we might get some by accident or with malicious intent.

Well, if you were really that innocent, you're not going to jail, right?

Bad things happen to good people all the time. The system isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

wh0mprat: ReverendJasen: wh0mprat: yeah, i'm not too worried about what your friends will think of you, you know?

I want everyone terrified to open videos they don't know are safe.

Friends? The loss of a career and a marriage is no worse than a few miffed friends, eh?

And no, we should not be terrified to open our farking email. We should be terrified to go online and look for this crap, terrified to save some on our computer, terrified to ask someone for it--but not terrified that we might get some by accident or with malicious intent.

Well, if you were really that innocent, you're not going to jail, right?

Bad things happen to good people all the time. The system isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

We can trust the criminal justice system. They're with the government.

Inflatable Rhetoric: wh0mprat: ReverendJasen: wh0mprat: yeah, i'm not too worried about what your friends will think of you, you know?

I want everyone terrified to open videos they don't know are safe.

Friends? The loss of a career and a marriage is no worse than a few miffed friends, eh?

And no, we should not be terrified to open our farking email. We should be terrified to go online and look for this crap, terrified to save some on our computer, terrified to ask someone for it--but not terrified that we might get some by accident or with malicious intent.

Well, if you were really that innocent, you're not going to jail, right?

Bad things happen to good people all the time. The system isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

We can trust the criminal justice system. They're with the government.

Ah, now I get it. You just don't trust the gubmit.

I have a distant cousin who resides in PMITA prison for possessing a bunch of child porn. He had one large folder full of it on a hard drive. His story to his family was that one of his customers was sending him this stuff and he was saving it in the folder to use against the guy. Some of the family believed him. I mentioned to his sister that perhaps he was being less than forthcoming about the true nature of the enormous amount of child porn in his possession and that any competent computer forensics person could tell, almost at a glace, whether all of the porn was from this one souce (as he claimed) or had been collected from several sites.

He pleaded guilty and is in another 14 years.

wh0mprat: notoverit: wh0mprat: Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that.

So you think the current US laws regarding child pornography are too harsh? You support lessening penalties for "consumers" of child porn?

Are you pro-child porn or just anti-child?

No, I'm advocating cases be judged on their merits, and that we leave these matters in the hands of the judges, not the legislators.

I think notoverit was providing an example of exactly what kind of rational discussion we could expect if some politician were to suggest that.

2 or 3 years old...

I read no further...

Whatever the law says, it should have bright-line rules, so it's easy to know if you're violating the law or not.

At least the current law doesn't leave any loopholes. Even for unsolicited stuff, a pedo could theoretically say "All those CP emails I got were unsolicited; I'm just lazy about cleaning out my spam folder."

In an ideal world, one could just report such things to law enforcement by email, delete it, and go on about their way.

The usual hysteria that surrounds such things gets in the way of this ideal, though. I assume, if you report you got CP, they come out and comb through everything, Just In Case(tm). Who here keeps records of everything in their pr0n collection to prove that every participant is over 18?

They see one 19-year-old-in-pigtails in your smut folder, then start tearing everything apart. The politically-aspiring DA badgers the babysitter into saying she thought you lingered too long the last time you put diaper rash ointment on your daughter, then it's "Die in prison, you sick freak!"

ReverendJasen: wh0mprat: yeah, i'm not too worried about what your friends will think of you, you know?

I want everyone terrified to open videos they don't know are safe.

Friends? The loss of a career and a marriage is no worse than a few miffed friends, eh?

And no, we should not be terrified to open our farking email. We should be terrified to go online and look for this crap, terrified to save some on our computer, terrified to ask someone for it--but not terrified that we might get some by accident or with malicious intent.

I agree. What about the assholes who hide CP in a music file you download? Or just a random email you receive? I will never search for child porn, i will never have possession of child porn to my knowledge, but if i get some in an email, what recourse do i have? Once you have even the faint stink of that accusation your life is over.

Example. I had an employee at one point that was sleeping with an underage girl. He had her send him cell phone videos and such, and come to find out he saved some rather risque stuff onto the work computer. Now, since i am the "owner" of the computer, I would be the one brought down for it. He ended up being fired, his paycheck went to buy a new computer. So if he ended up going to the police and turning ME in for it, do you really think I'd get away with nothing? At the very least my reputation and store would go down in flames. That's bullshiat. This witch hunt mentality has to stop. Prosecuting like this does nothing at all to stop child pornography and the people that make it, it just makes law enforcement look like it's doing something.

wyrlss: wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: That'll teach her to take pictures of naked children, won't it?

I think she already knows how.

heh. Yeah, I bet she does.

Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that. I just want to make sure that all the passive consumers of this filth are hauled up in front of a judge. If you really were tricked into possession, you should be found not guilty. But I'd rather have the authorities have the power to deal with these cases than stand helplessly by.

Exactly, and I really think this site (new window) backs you up here.

Am I going to get arrested for clicking on that link? I didn't know what it was.

danielem1: wyrlss: wh0mprat: wyrlss: wh0mprat: That'll teach her to take pictures of naked children, won't it?

I think she already knows how.

heh. Yeah, I bet she does.

Everyone, please understand I'm not advocating mandatory sentences or anything like that. I just want to make sure that all the passive consumers of this filth are hauled up in front of a judge. If you really were tricked into possession, you should be found not guilty. But I'd rather have the authorities have the power to deal with these cases than stand helplessly by.

Exactly, and I really think this site (new window) backs you up here.

Am I going to get arrested for clicking on that link? I didn't know what it was.

That is an excellent question. In answer to your question, if it wasn't just some random troll, yes, you would. And you would be sent to prison as a pedo, where prisoners would shank you with sharpened screwdrivers and you would develop addictions to various drugs being smuggled inside and lose any hope of getting a new job and not be allowed within x feet of children or schools and...
Isn't it nice that it's just a joke? Oh, it is to laugh.

"But if they keep the video on their computer, or share it with anyone, Brown and Milka said it's likely going to be there permanently, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted."

Unless, of course, they use a zero-filling utility. That is, a program that turns all the number ones to zeroes on every writable part of the hard drive. It used to be called low level formatting.

But today, it's just easier to use a hammer utility on your HD.

It's for fappin' researchin'.


/let my love open your diaper.

Guys, when you say a is not b, and someone replies asking so, you think y is z, and you respond, congrats, YHBT.

Put the rat in your ignore file, then look at how most of the remaining posts in the thread are responding to him or her.

logruszed: It's for fappin' researchin'.


/let my love open your diaper.

His story was such a load of shiat. He should have ended up in jail.

Pinko_Commie: "But if they keep the video on their computer, or share it with anyone, Brown and Milka said it's likely going to be there permanently, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted."

lol.

Understanding of computers fail.

More along the lines of "it's possible that it could be recovered off of the disk, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted, with the application of several thousand $ worth of computer forensic techniques and a lot of time."

Nope, freeware and as little as 5 minutes. You don't need fancy equipment to recover files from a "format". All that does is re-write the file table. The contents of the drive are still there and quite findable presuming that new files have not yet been written over top. With today's massive hard drives, it is quite easy to format, install a fresh OS, and still have tons of recoverable files.

wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

Do you honestly believe that child molesters go by "demand", like they are playing to some audience, and that's the reason they keep doing it? They do it because they are into it, not because they will get Internet traffic or somesuch. Yeah there are paysites out there, but those same people would still be doing it without those sites. The money they can make from it is a fringe benefit at best.

feanturi: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

Do you honestly believe that child molesters go by "demand", like they are playing to some audience, and that's the reason they keep doing it? They do it because they are into it, not because they will get Internet traffic or somesuch. Yeah there are paysites out there, but those same people would still be doing it without those sites. The money they can make from it is a fringe benefit at best.

it's the free market!!!!11!!!1!

You are spot on. That's why they need to spend more time and effort finding the people doing these things instead of prosecuting people that are victims of some asshole spreading around an email.

artifex: Guys, when you say a is not b, and someone replies asking so, you think y is z, and you respond, congrats, YHBT.

Put the rat in your ignore file, then look at how most of the remaining posts in the thread are responding to him or her.

Wow, way to pierce the murky layers of subterfuge to reveal the truth. That just impressive as hell. And the way you went put of your way to warn everyone, too. Totally selfless of you. Would that more people were paragons like you.

I DO feel that possession, "intentional" or not, should be investogated, but not necessarily land you on jail. Taht's not really so extreme a position, is it?

wh0mprat: SkittlesAreYum: Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

I think you're taking a very concrete view of victimization.

If there were a video of YOU getting ass-raped floating around on the internets, would you be OK with the idea that thousands of mastubating perverts are wathing it every day? Enjoying your humiiation and victimzation? What if it happened when you were a kid and it's been out there for years? Woudln't you want it GONE? Or would you be OK with it? What if it were your kid? Would you mind if people watched it? After all, they're not vicimizing your kid.

That's what they mean by vicitimized. Knowing that people are watching it and jerking it to a video of the worst time of their lives is victimization.

But you're tougher than that. You wouldn't mind.

Very much THIS! I was molested as a child and had it been filmed and distributed, regardless of not knowing who saw it or not, would fark with my life very seriously. It's already tough enough to deal with it in your own head, but to know that others are watching what you went through is no walk in the park.

Now I'm not saying that if you innocently get this sent to you and you mistakenly open it with good intentions that you should go to jail, but to say it doesn't victimize the victim more is just plain idiotic and stupid.

If you want to understand what the market for CP actually looks like, or what law enforcement is actually up against, there is an interesting but disturbing article at wikileaks.org called "My Life in Child Porn". I would have linked it directly, but wikileaks is experiencing some load issues right now. I recommend reading it. Know thy enemy.

My complaint about law enforcement's approach is much the same as the author of the aforementioned article states: the people who are actually turning a profit are far more sophisticated than law enforcement can ever hunt down. There are pedos posting home-made shiat that are easier to bust, but don't turn a profit. Ultimately, the author laments that the war on CP ruins far more lives of the innocent than the guilty (and provides well-publicized examples of people that law enforcement knew were innocent but prosecuted anyway).

The core issue seems to be that the pedo witch hunt is so heavily politicized that law enforcement is more interested in making headlines by busting whatever dumbass clicks a link than spending a whole lot of money, time and effort trying to hunt down the actual parties responsible. The so-called war on drugs reeks of the same issue.

Anyhow, read the article when wikileaks comes back up. Prepare to be disgusted (no, there are no illustrations; just at the author and at your government.)

/No suggestions from me.
//Rape and government are just dumb shiat that people do.
///And we always will.

The_one_with_that_guy: wh0mprat: SkittlesAreYum: Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

I think you're taking a very concrete view of victimization.

If there were a video of YOU getting ass-raped floating around on the internets, would you be OK with the idea that thousands of mastubating perverts are wathing it every day? Enjoying your humiiation and victimzation? What if it happened when you were a kid and it's been out there for years? Woudln't you want it GONE? Or would you be OK with it? What if it were your kid? Would you mind if people watched it? After all, they're not vicimizing your kid.

That's what they mean by vicitimized. Knowing that people are watching it and jerking it to a video of the worst time of their lives is victimization.

But you're tougher than that. You wouldn't mind.

Very much THIS! I was molested as a child and had it been filmed and distributed, regardless of not knowing who saw it or not, would fark with my life very seriously. It's already tough enough to deal with it in your own head, but to know that others are watching what you went through is no walk in the park.

Now I'm not saying that if you innocently get this sent to you and you mistakenly open it with good intentions that you should go to jail, but to say it doesn't victimize the victim more is just plain idiotic and stupid.

No, apparently it doesn't because you don't get physically slapped in the face when someone watches it. Or it keeps you from getting a job or something.

wh0mprat: The_one_with_that_guy: wh0mprat: SkittlesAreYum: Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

I think you're taking a very concrete view of victimization.

If there were a video of YOU getting ass-raped floating around on the internets, would you be OK with the idea that thousands of mastubating perverts are wathing it every day? Enjoying your humiiation and victimzation? What if it happened when you were a kid and it's been out there for years? Woudln't you want it GONE? Or would you be OK with it? What if it were your kid? Would you mind if people watched it? After all, they're not vicimizing your kid.

That's what they mean by vicitimized. Knowing that people are watching it and jerking it to a video of the worst time of their lives is victimization.

But you're tougher than that. You wouldn't mind.

Very much THIS! I was molested as a child and had it been filmed and distributed, regardless of not knowing who saw it or not, would fark with my life very seriously. It's already tough enough to deal with it in your own head, but to know that others are watching what you went through is no walk in the park.

Now I'm not saying that if you innocently get this sent to you and you mistakenly open it with good intentions that you should go to jail, but to say it doesn't victimize the victim more is just plain idiotic and stupid.

No, apparently it doesn't because you don't get physically slapped in the face when someone watches it. Or it keeps you from getting a job or something.

It's a different type of crime, i'll give you that, but it's a crime. It is victimizing that child. They don't want their image and humiliation public and it is. It's the same as if you raped a girl and filmed it. Every time someone sees that it's victimizing them. If your ex puts naked pictures of you on the internet for others to see, you are a victim.

feanturi: Pinko_Commie: "But if they keep the video on their computer, or share it with anyone, Brown and Milka said it's likely going to be there permanently, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted."

lol.

Understanding of computers fail.

More along the lines of "it's possible that it could be recovered off of the disk, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted, with the application of several thousand $ worth of computer forensic techniques and a lot of time."

Nope, freeware and as little as 5 minutes. You don't need fancy equipment to recover files from a "format". All that does is re-write the file table. The contents of the drive are still there and quite findable presuming that new files have not yet been written over top. With today's massive hard drives, it is quite easy to format, install a fresh OS, and still have tons of recoverable files.

You're right. I keep forgetting that most people think that by deleting a file that it's gone. I was assuming that if you were to do a format because you had child porn on your machine, you would do a proper job and do a repeated pseudo random write.

adamgreeney: It's a different type of crime, i'll give you that, but it's a crime. It is victimizing that child. They don't want their image and humiliation public and it is. It's the same as if you raped a girl and filmed it. Every time someone sees that it's victimizing them. If your ex puts naked pictures of you on the internet for others to see, you are a victim.

I agree. But there are some of our learned colleagues who think you can't be a victim unless it costs you money or physically injures you.

The article is bull crap on several levels.

First, if I am minding my own business and someone sends me a porn tape, that is his fault, not mine.

Second, I am not obligated to cooperate with the authorities in any way.

Third, there is no obvious intent on my part to break the law, so that is entrapment. A law enforcement officer cannot promote or coerce a crime when there is no intention to commit one.

Fourth, my right to self-incrimination is blatantly violated.

Fifth, I would never take the chance, because quite often innocent people are swept up in a crime sting, just because they are convenient targets; they do not cover their tracks, so they are easier to set up as a rule.

The definition of a police state is one where criminals are in charge of the government. Anytime I can't tell the difference between the cops and the crooks, I would say we are mighty close.

The article does have one correct piece of information: Delete the file at once, and also empty your recycle bin, so it can't be brought back.

olddinosaur: The article does have one correct piece of information: Delete the file at once, and also empty your recycle bin, so it can't be brought back.

This could not be more wrong. Even if you empty the trash, or even format the entire drive, the files can still be very easily recovered with any of hundreds of freeware file recovery programs. The technology the the police and FBI use for computer forensics is much more advanced and costs ungodly amounts of money.

I imagine all of your legal advice in that post was equally incorrect, but I'll let someone who's more knowledgeable about that subject than myself respond to all that.

I meant to say, "so that you will be in the clear."

I freely concede, people can recover deleted files with advancd software, but if someone sends me kiddie porn and I delete it, I am in the clear with the law.

I didn't ask for it, I threw it away as soon as it came into my posession.

Case closed.

deevo: well, here's a good article (new window) about a honeypot. Because "4yo_suck.rar" is such an obvious and damning name.

That makes the entire thing a little bit more palatable, at least it wasn't some random unknown link to a site. It was a number of partial video downloads the person had to click through. It was pretty straight forward to the person what they were clicking to get.

All the articles I'd seen previously made it sound like it was a vague link, like "see hot young girls get nasty" and were trapping people that way.

This has seriously gotten out of control... law enforcement has gotten so farking lazy it's pathetic. They are creating their own problems, here's why.

1. Prosecuting end users does nothing to stem the problem... this is true of CP, drug use, etc. Looking at pictures or smoking pot is a victimless crime, the "user" did nothing to actually harm another person.

2. In order to actually bust the producers, police officers need to gather evidence, this is a long and arduous process.

3. Punishing end users is easy, there a lot of them.

4. By punishing end users, who are potentially the best source of information, they created more enemies; enemies are not likely to share information with you.

So, basically, by making enemies out of everyone, the police have made it extremely hard to find the source. Of course, lots of busts means more funding so they have little incentive of actually targeting the producers.

Also, if you can be prosecuted for unintentionally possessing CP, I can think of a hundred different easy ways to put everyone in american in prison.

DRC500free: http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court

That law is so unconstitutional it is unbelievable. It has already been struck down by the third circuit and more is yet to come from the sounds of it. The guy had a shiatty lawyer that obviously had no knowledge of First Amendment rights, and did not understand the concept of what obscenity is.

So maybe it was originally sent by a misguided samaritan. Or maybe it was sent by the molester. Or maybe it was sent by someone who thinks the laws about e-mail and porn are absurd. Or maybe it was sent by the police.