Senators OK $1 Billion for Online Child Porn Fight

A bill that could allocate more than $1 billion over the next eight years to combat those who trade in child pornography has been unanimously approved by a Senate panel. "The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted to send an amended version of the Combating Child Exploitation Act, chiefly sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), to the full slate of politicians for a vote. [...] An amendment adopted Thursday also adds new sections to the original bill that would rewrite existing child pornography laws. One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question." Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."

thought crime

a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money

> "Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."

So it's the image that would be illegal as well as the act.

Re:thought crime

So it's the image that would be illegal as well as the act.

Yes, yes it would be. As it stands they prosecute people who have the image but didn't commit the act. Those who seek sexual gratification from these images are likely the ones who are going to pursue the actual act in the future, or so goes the reasoning.

What I find interesting about that is that a similar law was struck down in the supreme court a few years back. I'm surprised they'd pass a law so similar, seeing as how it's likely to get struck down in the future. Does anyone know what the differences are between this one and the one that was struck down?

Re:thought crime

Does anyone know what the differences are between this one and the one that was struck down?

This one makes it illegal and throws money at various corporations and government departments, the last one just made it illegal.

Re:thought crime

It doesn't matter if it sticks or gets struck down. By doing this they LOOK like they are doing something useful and thats all it's really mean to accomplish.

Re:thought crime

Given the frequency with which this has been attempted and failed over the years, I've come to the conclusion that Congress WANTS these laws to be challenged and struck down.

If it becomes a matter for the courts, then it's something that can be dragged on for years, repeatedly used as a diversion, and perhaps even used in a campaign. And when it fails, they can try again and again paint themselves as Tireless Protectors of the Children.

Re:thought crime

My question is how do they prove that the person in the picture is a minor (yes I know that in extreme cases it's easy). I dated a very tiny girl a few years ago. She was 22 and yet still got carded every time we went out, even got stopped by the cops once wondering why she wasn't in high school. So now are you telling me that some of my mementos from our relationship could now be illegal?

Re:thought crime

So who are they trying to protect, exactly? I thought the whole rational basis for the prohibition of child pornography is the very legitimate concern over the children that are abused to make it.

If there is no abuse, and, indeed, no actual children involved, then what the hell is the justification?

Not to mention the whole, "Whoops I clicked on a non-descriptive link, and my browser cached the imagine and now I'm in jail for kiddie porn" issue.

Re:thought crime

> So it's the image that would be illegal as well as the act.

It could be worse. In the UK our moral guardians are trying to protect us from harm by criminalising the writing of descriptions of violent sexual acts. Violent sexual acts between consenting adults, of course, is not illegal under most circumstances (there have been a few cases brought, but generally involving disgusting homosexuals, not us fine upstanding god fearing straight folk), but as soon as you put it into writing you'd be arrested and charged.

Re:thought crime

Given the current trend in exchange rates the government seems to be ahead ;)

Oh My,

My initial reading of the title left off the "Fight" part - anyone else?

alteration illegal??

prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."

As repugnant as child pornography is, this seems to be overstepping the realm of protecting children. Why should the alteration of an image, even to a repugnant end, be illegal? Possession of child porn is illegal, so it's in the interest of the "alterer" not to create fake child porn. I know we find it morally reprehensible, but there is no harm coming to anyone in and of the act of alteration itself. This seems a tad intrusive, and an undesirable precedent if nothing else.

Re:alteration illegal??

You haven't heard? The photoshopping of cocks into where ice cream cones used to be is a huge national problem!

I mean, it's not like there's a war on, or an economic problem, or anything else worth doing right now...

Uhuh...

Because, you know... rebuilding bridges and roads and stuff like that wouldn't be a better use of the money than on combating some fuzzy crime (17 year old makes a tape with her boyfriend and it gets shared? they just molested each other!!! kiddy pr0n!!!), the definition of which seems to keep shifting constantly.

back in the 80s its like all they talked about was satan worshipers and commies... now its kiddy diddlers and terrorists.

Meanwhile, the people who aren't doing anything wrong get no attention AT ALL, when we could actually use a thing or two to get done around here, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO... they'll just take our money to go fight Russian criminals through the inner-tubes.

What are the odds...

...that something like this would be proposed during an election year?

whom exactly is this part meant to protect?

prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted.

Whoa there. Photoshopping up child porn is going to be a crime, even if no child abuse occurs?

I could see if *distributing* such an image was a crime (because of the use of a kid's likeness), but producing it in the first place? If the law says what TFA says it does, this is constitutionally VERY shaky.

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect?

Yeah, but try being the senator that brings that up in committee. It's going to look great for your re-election campaign when your opponent plasters ads all over the place about how you're pro-kiddy porn and perverts.

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect?

A good argument can be made that ethically-produced child erotica helps pedophiles to live abuse-free lives.

Others will argue that the porn creates its own market, and might give people creepy sexual appetites that they wouldn't otherwise have.

Of course this is controversial, but a decent rhetorician should at least be able to argue the former point without sounding like a kiddy fiddler.

Maybe I'm giving legislators way too much credit.

more punishment for victimless crimes

One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question." Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted.

In other words, 17 year old highschool kids flashing their boobs on webcams or bored people modifying photos will now have their lives destroyed by these witchunts and blacklists even though they haven't abused anyone at all. Brilliant progress our society is making in the 21st century.

Re:more punishment for victimless crimes

Bushieism is the new McCarthyism. Instead of commies and homos you have terrists and kiddie rapists.

We've always gotta have an enemy, don't you know? And damned if the real one isn't almost always ourselves.

Peter Gibbons

Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a billion dollars?
Senate: I'll tell you what I'd do, man: Online Child Porn Fight.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd have an online child porn fight?
Senate: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I were a billionaire I could hook that up, too; 'cause child porn fighters dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.

For the children

is getting to be the cry of the modern fascist. Are out children really in more danger than they used to be? Is it worth throwing away our freedom and privacy to give them more protection? Does this "protection" actually serve our children's best interests?

This is really whacked...typical of Congress

How many pedophiles and child porn addicts are there in the USA?

Okay, let's say there 10,000. We could simply off $100,000 and amnesty (only for viewing not creating or abusing children) for them to turn themselves in to receive help.

Okay, so maybe there are more than 10,000 in the USA. Let's say there are a 100,000. In which case we could offer them all $10,000.

Heck, even if there were 1,000,000 we could offer them a $1,000 each. Of course, realize if there are that many in the USA we have a problem because that means 1 in 250 of us are the targets of this.

***

War on Drugs
War on Terror
War on Transfats
War on Child Porn

Not saying child porn is not insidiously evil. But it seems to be an extremely high ticket price. I'd really like to know how thought out this is.

Now if this is supposed to be against global child porn. Are we ready to invade Thailand and the rest of Asia in order to stop the child porn industries over there?

 

Good luck with that...

"Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."

Altering a picture digitally to show a crime being perpetrated on someone is protected under the first amendment - Ask Hollywood. Although some shoot-em-up movies are crimes against taste.

4chan

I don't see why this is so hard, all you have to do is take down 4chan.

their example seems a little off to me...

From the article:

Then they download files--frequently videos, sometimes as long as 20 to 30 minutes, with names like "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" and much more obscene--to their own machines.

It doesn't seem like someone would name a file "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" if they were really trying to share child pornography on a P2P network, especially if they were planning on not getting caught. I mean, that file name tells you nothing about the file other than that it's illegal and involves children. It doesn't even actually mention sex, although I guess it kind of implies it. Although I definitely don't have any first hand experience, I would imagine that pedophiles, like other people, would have specific preferences in their pornography and would want to know at least a little bit about the content before they download a file. I mean, I'm not going to download a file that's simply called "hardcore adult.mpg" when I'm looking for porn. What if it's two dudes? What if it's 2 girls 1 cup? Anyway, the example file name they gave sounds more like a file shared by someone who is trying to catch pedophiles than an actual pedophile trying to share child pornography.