German Member of Parliament Joins Pirate Party 246
Political Observer writes "Jörg Tauss, a member of the German Parliament (Bundestag), left the Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is part of the coalition government, and announced that he is joining the German Pirate Party (Google translation; original German article). Tauss resigned from the SPD after all but four of the party's members voted for a new censorship law, which passed the parliament on Thursday. The law, which aims at reducing child pornography, introduces an infrastructure for DNS-based content blocking and is the subject of major criticism from Internet users. In March 2009 Tauss became the subject of investigations by the German police for possession of child pornographic material. He said he had this material only for research as part of his role as a member of parliament. Investigations are still continuing."
Re:kiddie porn "research" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:kiddie porn "research" (Score:4, Interesting)
Say, for instance, you want to know how likely it is that somebody just on the internet, or somebody looking for ordinary porn, will be exposed to kiddie porn. Or, you want to know how prevalent kiddie porn actually is. Either question seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to wonder about, if you are a legislator with a kiddie porn related bill presented for your consideration. Attempting to answer either question could easily leave you with some illegal images in your browser cache.
In related news, the RIAA and MPAA released a joint statement calling the Pirate Party "A degenerate den of pedophiles that threaten our children and, indeed, our very society"...
Re:kiddie porn "research" (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd just like to add people are curious, plus if anyone wants to get a taste of what people wish they could do if they could get away with it read some books by nancy friday.
Human beings are animals, and they are curious. Put the two together and it's not surprising.
UPDATE! (Score:5, Interesting)
His membership got accepted by the Pirate Party!
We now have an active Pirate in the parliament.
I wonder how the next Bundestag elections will end. I have the feeling, that this is the start of something big!
Re:Well done Germany (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you arrive at this conclusion? By there being one guy changing parties?
You're lauding the Germans for their Democracy in response to an article about how most of the government there just voted to put in place internet censorship and a framework for DNS redirection to enforce it?
Sounds like they are experiencing many of the same problems with the principles of Democracy that many other countries are having.
Re:No one here's buying it. (Score:1, Interesting)
No, the child isn't being directly harmed by someone viewing their exploitation, however their honor and dignity are chipped away at with each viewing.
That's a comment on society, not childhood sexuality. It's worth asking what does more damage to a kid--being forced to have sex, or the soul-crushing shame their society inadvertently (?) heaps on them for it. You know, because now the kid is a "victim" of the most horrible possible crime that could have been committed towards them. The kid now has all these roles they're expected to fulfill, like "can never trust anyone" and "can never have a normal sex life" and so on. How much of the damage is real, and how much is because society tells them they should have it?
Just because the video was already made -- the brunt of the damage has been done -- doesn't give us all the right to see it guilt-free.
If it was truly damaging to the kid, then yeah, feel guilty; but that's a special case of a more general rule--if you're enjoying someone else's pain, you shouldn't be. It doesn't matter if they're child or adult.
But what if the kid enjoyed it? What if the kid is okay with the material being out there? I find it hard to believe I was the only prepubescent human in the history of mankind to enjoy sexual stimulation!
And completely decriminalizing possession would send an implicit message that the depictions themselves are acceptable.
Possession of videos of just about every other crime on the books is legal, yet that hasn't sent the message that those crimes are acceptable.
That said, I certainly agree punishments shouldn't be anywhere near what they are today for mere possession, especially since regardless of conviction the person's life is oft-times destroyed upon mere accusation. (And as for your comparison up there, I actually think possessing videos depicting real murder should carry a similar punishment.)
Why should it be punished at all? I'd much rather pedophiles have a catharsis than for their urges and curiosities to build up over years until they can no longer contain them and go out to sexually abuse some kid. Not to get all Jack Thompson, but we have this entire culture now built around not just watching, but participating in simulated murder (video games). Unlike good ol' Jack, though, I don't think those games drive people to murder, but do the opposite: They let people blow off steam--satisfy their urges in non-destructive ways--and then everything is alright.
It doesn't even require that any new KP be made--just use what exists. They could say something like, "Any of this stuff from 30 years ago is okay--whack away. But if you make anything new or take it beyond fantasy, we're gonna burn ya."
I know, I know--it'll never fly. We're living in a world scared to death of pot smokers; suggesting that pedophiles should be given an inch will never fly for as long as any of us will live.
Re:Why chase pedofiles and not child molesters? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, what he did is known to everyone who bothers to not only read headlines: He did trade some material. He did not pay for anything and wasn't paid. His defence is that as a Member of Parliament, he had get an idea of the extent of the problem and the structures of the scene. It is currently unclear whether that's legal according to German criminal law.
BTW, there's another public figure who is in possession of child pornography and even offensively showed it around: Ursula von der Leyen (dubbed Zensursula), the German Minister of Family Affairs. There was no investigation and no-one doubted that that had been legal.
In short:
If you're part of the Legislative, you're obviously not supposed to posses child porn in order to make an informed decision about laws on child pornography.
If you're part of the Executive, you're obviously entitled to possess child porn in order to show it around to the press to gain support for drafts of such laws.
Re:Well done Germany (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:kiddie porn "research" (Score:1, Interesting)
Does it? Or is it like the UK, where drawn pornography involving child characters is classed as obscenity, even when a similar drawing featuring adult characters wouldn't be?
Making, distributing or possessing real child pornography isn't classed as obscenity, it's classed as sexual abuse. The only difference between making, distributing and possessing is one of degree, not substance. Abusing a child is one part of the crime, taking photos is another, distributing them is another, possessing them is another. Anyone who does any of these things, including possessing photos, is a party to the act.
With drawn pictures, there is no act of sexual abuse; it's merely an obscenity offence.
Re:kiddie porn "research" (Score:3, Interesting)
And what is a "child"? Is a 17yro a child? You know, you come to the point where teenagers take pictures and are charged of childporn.
Where is the good old German nudism gone?
Re:Why chase pedofiles and not child molesters? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because people have a natural instinct to protect their children, which causes them to be on lookout for potential dangers for them. This, in turn, causes slight anxiety, which is preyed on by the cynical politicians who are drawn to psychological weaknesses like sharks to blood.
It's the same thing as with terrorism: politicians and others who want power strive to fan people's fears into full-blown panic, so they are no longer thinking rationally, and can be manipulated easily. Pedophiles are even better boogeymen than terrorists, because the guy who points out he has better chances of being struck by lightning than dying in a terror attack seems brave while a guy - or better yet, a mother - who points out that her children are more likely to be run over by a car than get molested by a stranger can be branded a bad parent.
Hysteria and lack of rational thinking are considered virtuous when dealing with children, and calm use of reason is seen as callous and irresponsible. The end result is, of course, the same as it's always been: a police state build on the pretext of eradicating witches/jews/communists/terrorists/pedophiles.
Preventing child abuse is not the point of these policies. Enabling censorship and getting votes for it because "it's for the children" is. If anything, increased abuse would be beneficial for the politicians, since it would be something for them to point to and pretend to be fighting against.
Re:Why chase pedofiles and not child molesters? (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly, basically he did a stupid thing which harmed his cause. But still it is no coincidence that Tauss was taken out just before the internet filtering bill passes the parliament. You would usually delay it but child porn is an very emotional and sensitive issue, cmp. Belgium, and they wanted to get rid off Tauss anyway.