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.