Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet The Courts Technology Your Rights Online

Japan Moves Toward Blocking Online Child Porn 374

Posted by timothy
from the so-stop-boycotting-nissim dept.
crimeandpunishment writes "In the wake of increased international demands that it do something about its legal lenience toward child pornography, Japan is beginning to take action, albeit slowly. Thursday a government task force recommended that kiddie porn sites be blocked as soon as they're discovered, instead of waiting for an investigation or arrests. Making or distributing child porn is illegal in Japan, but possession is not ... and critics have called that a legal loophole making Japan an international hub for child porn."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japan Moves Toward Blocking Online Child Porn

Comments Filter:
  • If only they listened to the world about whaling too.

  • by ground.zero.612 (1563557) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @03:52PM (#32368128)

    I remember reading it is like twelve years old. That might not be true, but even if it is, who the fuck is the USA to tell Japan what constitutes child pornography?

    If kids can make porn legally in Japan, who's fucking business is it really other than the Japanese?

    • by OzPeter (195038) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:00PM (#32368232)

      I remember reading it is like twelve years old. That might not be true, but even if it is, who the fuck is the USA to tell Japan what constitutes child pornography?

      If kids can make porn legally in Japan, who's fucking business is it really other than the Japanese?

      I don't know if you have noticed this but the US has been known to tell all sorts of sovereign states what they should and shouldn't do on quite a number of topics. Its the type of action that causes all sorts of people to yell and complain about imperialism by the US.

    • by mangu (126918) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:13PM (#32368430)

      Independent of the age at which something becomes "child porn", this expression is way too much overused. There was a time when someone saying "child porn" was sounding an alarm, today it's like background noise.

      I admit I've seen lots and lots of porn on the web, but never anything that could be remotely called "child porn", unless you call adult women with small breasts and shaved pubic hair "children". If this "child porn" thing actually exists, which I doubt, it's so well hidden that any measures about blocking it are useless. Better try to block the Illuminati instead.

      Sadly, the politicians have learned to use "child porn" like they use "terrorism", a convenient handle by which they are able to manipulate the masses.

    • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:19PM (#32368514) Homepage

      You should not confuse age of consent with the age something is considered child pornography. in Europe the age of consent ranges from 13-16 but the limit for child pornography is almost universally 18. You get a world of hurt from the "world community", meaning mostly the US, if you suggest anything lower. The age of consent don't matter that much because then the US can stick their head in the sand and pretend that if they can't see it, it isn't happening.

  • Cencorship, etc (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dward90 (1813520) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @03:53PM (#32368144)
    Obviously, CP is bad. However, I personally commend the Japanese for being slow in attempting a censorship sweep that will cost resources and, ultimately, do between little and nothing to actually protect the actual victims.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      Care to back up your argument that not allowing child porn in no way impact the spread of it?

      • Re:Cencorship, etc (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JesseMcDonald (536341) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:05PM (#32368306) Homepage

        Why should the GP back up an argument he/she never made?

        Note: "preventing spread of CP" != "protecting actual victims"

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by geekoid (135745)

          If he had said 'current victims' you would be correct, but he said actual children. More CP = more victims.

          I thought basic logic was in place, apparently not and I will need to spell everything out using small words and simple sentence.

          • Re:Cencorship, etc (Score:5, Informative)

            by HungryHobo (1314109) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:27PM (#32368646)

            2 copies of the same picture of the same abuse does not mean more abuse than 1 copy of the picture of that abuse.

            or do we need to spell everything out using small words and simple sentence.

          • I think you do. I think More CP = Less victims.

            Whats worse:
            CP making it onto the net
            or
            CP existing with no record of it happening

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            What an idiot. No, seriously, what an idiotic statement that was.

            Lack of CP on the internet isn't going to do a god damn thing about child porn.
            Child porn lasted on tapes for longer than the internet has been around.
            What makes you think any of this shit will stop CP at all?
            A little thing to remember is the internet is not the only place that exists. I know it is hard to forget that fact sometimes, but it is true.

            CD copying still happens massively despite peer-to-peer.

            God forbid you don't know what child tr

        • Note: "preventing spread of CP" != "protecting actual victims"

          If you rescued one of your children from someone victimizing them and videotaping it would you be happy just having them back in safety? Or would you want to stop people from leering over your underage child? People that seek this out are just as responsible as the people making the content. You can be damned sure that if you were paying someone to make snuff tapes you'd be charged along with the producers.

          • Re:Cencorship, etc (Score:4, Interesting)

            by QCompson (675963) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @05:36PM (#32369422)

            People that seek this out are just as responsible as the people making the content.

            I have trouble understanding this logic. Someone who seeks out a picture of a child being abused (say on a free p2p network) are just as responsible as the person who actually abused the child? There's no difference to you? Really?

            You can be damned sure that if you were paying someone to make snuff tapes you'd be charged along with the producers.

            Maybe, under a conspiracy charge, yes. Yet if you were just seeking out snuff tapes you wouldn't be charged. Or if you just possess snuff tapes. Or even if you pay someone for snuff tapes after the fact. By that logic we could charge people with conspiracy to commit sexual abuse of a child if they were paying for a child to be abused before it actually occurred, and thus our current child porn laws would be unnecessary. Otherwise your analogy is completely false.

            • I think you could make the argument that viewers are as responsible as distributors -- you're unlikely to distribute if nobody cares. But I agree there's a difference between distribution and the original abuse.

              You can make the argument that the child porn causes harm to the children pictured, but I think that harm is separate and distinct from the actual abuse pictured. The abuse is ... abuse, whether documented or not. The distribution of the images is sort of (very vaguely) like a smear campaign, if you

            • By that logic we could charge people with conspiracy to commit sexual abuse of a child if they were paying for a child to be abused before it actually occurred, and thus our current child porn laws would be unnecessary.

              Yes. People have probably already been charged with crimes like that, it's conspiracy. Are you saying it's ok to finance child porn as long as you're not the one committing it? I don't know how that would make any current law unnecessary though.

    • by elucido (870205) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:12PM (#32368406)

      Obviously, CP is bad.

      However, I personally commend the Japanese for being slow in attempting a censorship sweep that will cost resources and, ultimately, do between little and nothing to actually protect the actual victims.

      Obviously, CP is bad.

      However, I personally commend the Japanese for being slow in attempting a censorship sweep that will cost resources and, ultimately, do between little and nothing to actually protect the actual victims.


      "We're making an appeal today to build a society without child pornography," said Anges Chan, a UNICEF ambassador and well-known media personality in Japan. "We're trying to build a national movement to appeal to the government to outlaw the possession of child pornography."

      Unless they can statistically prove that possession of evidence of the crime leads to
      future crimes against children, having laws against possession is a law that is a problem in search of a solution. If police need search warrants they can find other ways to get them but having a search warrant which only leads to digital copies of evidence of the crime does not actually solve or prevent the crime.

      So what is the purpose of tracking every copy? The only purpose I see in doing this is to track down the distributors. This would be fine but lets be serious, all they have to do is offer a bounty. "If you have information which leads to the arrest or conviction of a distributor of child porn you will be rewarded 500,000 yen."

      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:21PM (#32368552)

        If police need search warrants they can find other ways to get them but having a search warrant which only leads to digital copies of evidence of the crime does not actually solve or prevent the crime.

        But it sure makes for good PR. Much better headlines to say you've busted hundreds of icky pervs than to say you busted one guy who has a well documented track record of hurting kids.

      • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:38PM (#32368790)

        "If you have information which leads to the arrest or conviction of a distributor of child porn you will be rewarded 500,000 yen."

        Good god is that ever ripe for abuse. I don't even consider myself a hacker and I'm pretty sure I could frame up the neighbor in less than a week with a couple hours research online. It would be all too easy to do, and at $5000 a pop I could make several hundred thousand dollars a year framing up people I don't like all the while being called a hero by those who don't understand how ludicrously full of holes modern computer security is.

        • Sure you can hack somebody and upload the child porn and charge them with possession. I'm sure this happens to many people which is one of the reasons why possession laws are so flawed. What I'm saying is that distribution would need some legal document attached to it such as a domain registery, ISP records, website logs. And I'm not talking about distributing a few megs, or gigs, but hundreds of gigs. The type of distribution you'd expect to see from a criminal distribution ring.

          Traffic analysis and other

      • by Pharmboy (216950)

        "If you have information which leads to the arrest or conviction of a distributor of child porn you will be rewarded 500,000 yen."

        Might want to up the reward, that's less than $5k American, which won't rent you a crappy apartment in downtown Toyko for a month.

        • by elucido (870205)

          "If you have information which leads to the arrest or conviction of a distributor of child porn you will be rewarded 500,000 yen."

          Might want to up the reward, that's less than $5k American, which won't rent you a crappy apartment in downtown Toyko for a month.

          I know how much it is. Would you want enough money to buy a state of the art new computer if you turn in the pedophile IRC distribution channel?

          • Presuming that the people most likely to have the information to turn in are the ones who like kiddie porn in the first place, yes $5K is not going to be anywhere near enough to encourage them to rat out a supplier. I think $50K is probably closer to what it would take.

      • by Rakshasa Taisab (244699) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @09:01PM (#32371250) Homepage

        "We're making an appeal today to build a society without child pornography," said Anges Chan, a UNICEF ambassador and well-known media personality in Japan. "We're trying to build a national movement to appeal to the government to outlaw the possession of child pornography."

        Agnes Chan... the very same former gravure idol that made a plea for donations to Somali children from her super-gaudy luxury mansion? The one that is famous for ad hominem attacks when complex issues relating to privacy are discussed in the diet?...

        She's the Sarah Palin of Japan.

    • Obviously, CP is bad. However, I personally commend the Japanese for being slow in attempting a censorship sweep that will cost resources and, ultimately, do between little and nothing to actually protect the actual victims.

      The victims were victimized when the images/video were produced. And they are victimized every time they are viewed.

      These safe houses condone CP, censoring them will help future would be victims. Also curbing the flow of CP could help would be victimizers from feeding their fetish.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        And nearly all "hard core" child porn is committed by family members or close family friends. Making possession illegal will do nothing except put a bunch of innocent people in jail for no reason without actually addressing the real problem. Hell, most of what you may see isn't even recent but left over postings from Usenet posts from the late 70's early 80s.:

        http://wikileaks.org/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn [wikileaks.org]
    • Yes, obviously (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @09:00PM (#32371242) Journal

      Yes, obviously child porn is bad... that this is already a horrible piece of dogmatic reasoning, is not even the worsed of it. What is next?

      Read up on "The people vs Harry Flint". Why did so many people come to the defence of a porn peddler? A crude porn peddler at that? Why defend a guy selling smuts with a few crude and insulting attackings on decent public people thrown in? (Some child porn addicts call this parody/satire) Because of this:

      First they came... [wikipedia.org]

      It might be one of the most paraphrased quotes in history but it remains extremely valid. Remember, the guy who said it was a nazi symphatizer. Or to put it in this context, the anti-porn peddler hit by anti-depravity laws.

      "obviously child porn is bad". I call this dogmatic because it leaves no room for argument, this is the classic tactic of the dictator. "Obviously X is bad" has been used countless times. Put communism in place for X and you got the McCarthy trials. Put independent woman and you got the witch hunts. And you can't argue against it, because it is obvious. You get to the point that just arguing against it becomes a crime by itself.

      Child porn is the moralists dream. Nobody can argue that sex with a toddler should be allowed, so you have won the entire argument and then it becomes just a matter of constantly increasing the definition of child and eventually porn. Different countries have different ages of consent. Do you REALLY want the entire world to have to accept the age of consent of the most puritan nation on earth? Plenty of arguments to raise the age to 21. Say bye bye to any porn and once you accepted that to any nudity. Venus the Milo? Could be under 21, FORBIDDEN!

      One of the indicators that the people who want to introduce these bans have not so hidden agenda's is that they talk bull shit. Japan is introducing censorship because of international pressure. Funny, Japan goes on whaling despite international pressure. It keep denying its warcrimes despite international pressure. But the one thing that could benefit the Japanese content industry like Sony, that they act upon. Oh, you don't see how censorhip of CP can benefit Sony?

      Simple, file sharing networks are filled with CP and copyrighted content. Ban them for the CP and the copyrighted content follows. Freedom of exchange information means CP. Can't be helped, just asked the people behind Freenet. By its very nature the founders of freenet support CP because that has become the ultimate test of free anonymous speech. If you support that people have the right, the need, to be able to share any document without fear of reprisal, then you support the exchange of CP in practice.

      It is simple really, freedom is the freedom to do really bad things. If you are free to drink, then you are free to drink yourself to death. If you are free to buy a rope, then you are free to hang yourself (remember that one of the first things they do when you freedom is removed in a jail, you are stopped from having the means to commit suicide).

      Freedom is not some limited concept. You can't say: "well you can't do these things because a lot of people find them disgusting" because there will always be someone somewhere who finds something disgusting. You might not like 2 girls 1 cup but you would like it even less if all the content of the world had to pass through the approval of some Utah citizen.

      But because of Dogma, if you want to protect freedom, you are defending the CP peddlers. It is almost impossible to fight this and I am fairly certain we will come to regret this. "Daddy, where were you when they took freedom away". "Why, I was thinking of you my dear, I killed your freedom to protect you."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27, 2010 @03:54PM (#32368156)

    simply keeping child porn around on your HDD should not be illegal and what the rest of the world should be doing instead of criticizing japan.
    just because 235235235235.jpg on the porn site you visited happens to be of a 17 year old girl instead of 18 and is stored in your browser cache DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PEDO.
    GO JAPAN!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That, and the trend toward criminalizing drawings and renderings. You can't criminalize something just because you think it's creepy, gross, or offensive. It has to cause harm somehow.
      If I were molested as a child, I would certainly feel harmed by distribution of the images. But who is hurt by drawings? Or the photoshopping of older girls to look younger (I think Law & Order once had an episode about how reprehensible that is...)?
      • by elucido (870205) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:27PM (#32368642)

        There are so many cameras and surveillance, with camera phones and facebook that its just too late to be concerned about childrens privacy. Nobody has privacy anymore.

        The monster in this situation is the individual who molests the child and then tape records it. The recording is evidence and in my opinion has to be analyzed, the individuals who like watching the evidence might not be actual child molesters and the utilitarian thing to do would be to pay these individuals to find and download child pornography and act as informants to help track down the source.

        I don't really think it's a good idea to put people in prison for having illegal bits on their computer. But I do understand that in order to get informants you have to have at least the threat of putting them in prison. That being said I don't think anyone put in prison for having illegal bits should be treated like a sex offender, I think the concept of sex offender now includes anyone convicted of any sort of sex cirme for any reason and in my opinion we need to separate the sex addicts from the violent sex offenders.

        Violent sex offenders will use any means including violence, these are rapists, child molesters, the people we believe should be locked in prison for life.

        Non-violent sex offenders who are actually sex addicts are in general addicted to a specific substance whether it be bits, a certain pattern of thinking, or a series of behaviors. These individuals get convicted because they have a picture of a 16 year old naked, or they are 21 and had sex with their 17 year old gf. These individuals don't belong in the same category as true violent sex offenders.

        The solution in my opinion is to separate the categories so that individuals who are non violent don't get their lives ruined over something dumb. These individuals can help take down the actual violent sex offenders who rape and murder.

    • I was curious... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:11PM (#32368386)

      and searched usenets for childporn. I found it, and then deleted it. Months later my computer was seized by law enforcement because the guy I was renting a room from was under investigation for a completely separate matter.

      The deleted cp was discovered and I was charged with posession. No jail time, but did have to work at the local animal shelter for a couple days a week for a couple months. The lawyer bill was about $4,000.

      I would probably be much more bitter about the whole episode had I ended up being a Registered Sex Offender. Turns out that in my state the offender registry is reserved for the more serious offenses.

      Witches are being hunted down, non-believers are being tortured: it's easy to see all our technological progress and think that we've progressed far beyond the fire and stake.

      --

      • by elucido (870205)

        and searched usenets for childporn. I found it, and then deleted it. Months later my computer was seized by law enforcement because the guy I was renting a room from was under investigation for a completely separate matter.

        The deleted cp was discovered and I was charged with posession. No jail time, but did have to work at the local animal shelter for a couple days a week for a couple months. The lawyer bill was about $4,000.

        I would probably be much more bitter about the whole episode had I ended up being a Registered Sex Offender. Turns out that in my state the offender registry is reserved for the more serious offenses.

        Witches are being hunted down, non-believers are being tortured: it's easy to see all our technological progress and think that we've progressed far beyond the fire and stake.

        --

        The situation is stupid very stupid and a waste of resources. Did LE ask you to help them track down the maker of the child pornography? I don't see what arresting you has accomplished in the context of making children safer.

        This is equal to arresting somebody for possession of a joint, it doesn't stop the flow of narcotics or accomplish anything beyond just having somebody to arrest so that it looks like something is being accomplished.

      • by misexistentialist (1537887) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @05:41PM (#32369472)

        but did have to work at the local animal shelter for a couple days a week for a couple months

        What was the point, to rehabilitate pedophiles into zoophiles?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745)

      Way ti really, really oversimplify. If CP was just 17 year olds that you had no reason to believe they where below legal age, you would have a point.
      No take 10 years off that age.
      Whole new ballgame. While someone will occasional be busted for the reason you described, there are rare and a result of forcing judges to not think about the context of the situation.

      really, you're being stupid with that argument. Stupid about how law enforcement is done, stupid about the legal system and stupid about the total sp

      • by elucido (870205)

        Way ti really, really oversimplify. If CP was just 17 year olds that you had no reason to believe they where below legal age, you would have a point.
        No take 10 years off that age.
        Whole new ballgame. While someone will occasional be busted for the reason you described, there are rare and a result of forcing judges to not think about the context of the situation.

        really, you're being stupid with that argument. Stupid about how law enforcement is done, stupid about the legal system and stupid about the total spectrum of who this involves.

        How are you supposed to believe that to a jury? Physically there is no difference between a 17 and 18 year old. Anybody can be fooled. Honestly there is no difference from 16-20 in some cases. This doesn't change the fact that people can go to jail just for having nude images of a 17 year old even if the 17 year old is just a few months shy of being 18.

        The laws are fundamentally stupid.

        • You know that. I know that. If the jury doesn't, it's not a fault of the laws - they're supposed to be interpreted, not blindly applied.

  • I was going to say "Won't somebody think of the children." but then I thought maybe that is the problem. Some people are thinking too much about the children.
    • I was going to say "Won't somebody think of the children." but then I thought maybe that is the problem. Some people are thinking too much about the children.

      "Won't somebody please link to the children?"

      *ducks*

  • A giant robot taskforce has also been assembled to combat tentacles of, ahem, varying natures. Hooray!

  • A few years ago (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27, 2010 @03:59PM (#32368200)

    some European countries (at least The Netherlands) had legal possession of this stuff. So calling one of the last countries to not make it illegal "an international hub" is a bit over the top. I'd be more worried about countries that have high child prostitution.

    I agree with shutting websites that distribute child pornography as soon as they are discovered, but on the news in The Netherlands today was the message that police and justice were too occupied with their (witch)hunt of child porn possessors to effectively go after the PRODUCERS and DISTRIBUTORS of it. A damn shame and a testament to how the police/justice need to prioritize their efforts.

  • by elucido (870205) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:04PM (#32368268)

    Child prostitution should be illegal everywhere. Child porn is evidence of child prostitution in some cases and child abuse in others. It shouldn't be difficult to block websites from selling it.

    To stop people from viewing it is a different matter entirely and in my opinion is technically impossible and unconstitutional because its relying on thought crime legislation. As long as no children are being victimized and nobody is profiting from it, it's not a problem.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      It's child abuse in all cases.

      It's not unconstitutional.
      And while it's technically impossible, it helps keep it from appearing every where.

      How do you have child porn without a victim?

      • by elucido (870205)

        It's child abuse in all cases.

        It's not unconstitutional.
        And while it's technically impossible, it helps keep it from appearing every where.

        How do you have child porn without a victim?

        Thought crimes violate free speech rights. Therefore it's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court might not see it that way but the Supreme Court views Corporations as immortals in the highlander sense of the word.

        I never said production of child porn isn't child abuse. Obviously to create child pornography is a crime and usually involves child abuse. But you have situations where two children can create child porn themselves and who is the victim here?

        It's just not a simple problem to solve. I think the only t

      • by dissy (172727) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:48PM (#32368910)

        How do you have child porn without a victim?

        With our current laws:

        * Shes 17.98 years old
        * Shes provably over 18, but depicting a child
        * Shes a drawing
        * Shes a computer generated image/video

        Any of those criteria being met makes the media child porn to the law. All parties involved were fully willing adults with no victims.

        Not saying any of those are the majority of child porn online, personally I'd guess it's an unfortunately small amount, but whatever the percentages there are some things the law deems child porn that do not in fact have any victims.

      • a) There are definitions of CP that do not include real children, and therefore cannot directly involve child abuse. You could argue that it does so indirectly, by warping the minds of blah blah blah, but please consider that CP, as a phrase, may include more than you might think.

        b) How do you have images of murder without a victim? You don't. Yet people possess said images, distribute said images, even broadcast them on the evening news. It's no crime to have video of Kennedy being assassinated. We do not

    • Just to throw complexity into the works there's a lot of screwed up laws in various countries that boil down to a number of insane situations like

      Being guilty of creating and possessing child pornography if you snap a photo of yourself as a teenager and in many places teenagers can marry each other at 17 and have sex with their husband/wife but god forbid they video-tape the night of the honeymoon for themselves.

      I mean seriously.
      It creates situations where documenting utterly legal events where nobody is b

  • hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theheadlessrabbit (1022587) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:06PM (#32368310) Homepage Journal

    While child porn is certainly a very terrible thing, the rush to suppress it brings up an interesting point.

    we often hear these two arguments:

    possessing child porn = supports the industry and encourages further production
    possessing downloaded music/movies = damages the industry and threatens further production

    If downloading media is such a serious threat to the production of new content that laws have to be introduced to prevent unauthorized sharing, why isn't anyone suggesting that downloading child porn be encouraged to drive the producers out of business?

    I guess one, (or both) of the above statements is false. Anyone care to take a guess which?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rcuhljr (1132713)
      While I'll admit I laughed when I read this, I think the debunking to this argument would probably center around the fact that music and movies have legal avenues of purchase/sales that CP doesn't. Perhaps comparing it to going after distributors versus users and the war on drugs might yield some more useful comparisons.
    • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Locke2005 (849178) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:29PM (#32368686)
      I've always maintained that the (legal) porn industry could be put out of business very easily simply by having governments refuse to protect the pornographer's copyrights. Making all previously produced child pron easily available for free should in theory remove the profit motive to produce more, and therefore protect further minors from exploitation. However, I'm afraid most of the people in this "business" aren't in it for the money. I also don't see any compelling societal interest in blocking the production or distribution of virtual child porn that doesn't involve any actual minors in its production. Some theorize that allowing people to view certain kinds of fantasies make them more likely to indulge in those fantasies in real life, but I've seen no scientific evidence that this is true. I play MMORPGs, but I feel no compulsion whatsoever to go around killing ogres in real life!
      • by fbjon (692006)
        I don't think coypright and other legal protection is of any great concern to illegal pornographers. Also, the commercial businesses is just one side, there's also the Random Joes making their own stuff. No economic disincentive would work when there is no profit motive.
    • by Kjella (173770)

      Uh, because child porn producers can't enforce copyright on their work? So they aren't losing money because they're not earning it that way in the first place.

      However, even the patronage model is potentially income. The more people want it, the more room there is for trading, buying access from middlemen collectors, paying for new and rare items, custom productions, maybe even live performances or participation. Even if you legalized it you could not prevent that some things would be "worth" something, and

  • Just a note,
    I believe that Japan allows animated/drawn "child" porn.
    So this would not be effecting any of that type.

  • A sad day (Score:4, Funny)

    by surveyork (1505897) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:15PM (#32368450) Journal
    for Pedobear.
  • It is never appropriate to short circuit due process in legal matters. If you crack the door open, it will open a little wider each day, until the floodgates are wide. There is never an excuse for not waiting for an investigation or arrests, "just for this one kind of offense."

    "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

    THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

    THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak up because I w

    • "THEY CAME FIRST for the Rapists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Rapist. THEN THEY CAME for the Murderers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Murderers. THEN THEY CAME for the human traffickers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a human trafficker. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."

      Go outside. NOW. You've overdosed on internet. Go outside.

  • by nightfire-unique (253895) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @04:24PM (#32368592)

    I know I'm not alone in feeling uncomfortable about Western society's view of sex and nudity as something dangerous, mysterious, and generally negative. It varies from country to country, but it feels like we're continuing to regress into a puritanical and uneducated fear of our reproductive systems, even while other parts of our society leverage that fear - churches, MTV, clothing companies, magazines..

    I worry that we're sending the wrong message to youth. That they should be denied sexual education, and told that they will be punished for developing sexually before some arbitrary age - typically several years after the onset of puberty.

    Now I'm not going to argue that real commercial kiddy porn is a positive thing. But I also wish humanity would take a step back, a deep breath, and view the issue with some amount of rationality. For crying out loud, we're locking up our children for sending nude images of themselves! Talk about psychosis.

    Many men are terrified to approach and help a child in need for fear of being caught up in this institutionalized hunt.

    We're justifying censorship, Internet filtering, gestapo-state police invasions, horrific prison terms... for pictures. For all we know (and we don't because research on the subject is utterly impossible), pictures help otherwise decent human beings who happen to be attracted to young people to cope with their sexual orientation. By threatening dozens of years in jail for simple possession, we could be encouraging those inclined to go out and find the real thing.

    Why not focus our efforts and energy on things we can (probably) all agree are worse for kids than possession of images like ending child hunger and poverty, war, child soldiers, and such things? Japan can sort her own issues.

    • by Nursie (632944)

      So victims of child abuse that becomes child porn should not expect that pictures of humiliation and sexual violence toward them be controlled and removed from circulation wherver possible? That people perpetrating further indignities toward them every time the image is viewed and distributed be stopped and punished?

      Sorry, but this is a no-brainer to me.

      There are many problems in the world, just because this is not the absolute, 100% worst doesn't mean it shouldn't be tackled.

  • by Trailer Trash (60756) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @05:18PM (#32369232) Homepage

    Making or distributing child porn is illegal in Japan, but possession is not

    Exactly as it should be. That focuses police resources on cutting roots (creators/distributors) instead of branches (consumers). Blocking it online is fine, too, but they need to try to trace it.

  • by Foobar of Borg (690622) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @08:28PM (#32371044)
    "The Japanese Agricultural Ministry is not responsible for child porn."

Science and religion are in full accord but science and faith are in complete discord.

Working...