Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

Appeals Court Upholds Ban On Pseudo-Kiddie Porn 94

Posted by michael from the who-wants-to-defend-kiddie-porn dept.
bmasel writes "The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has become the third federal appeals court to uphold a federal law expanding the definition of child pornography to include computer-generated images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct -- even if the images only appear to be of a minor." Once upon a time, the justification for bans on child pornography was that such a ban would reduce the abuse of children. Now the justification has changed to something along the lines of "These are ugly pictures, and so we should ban them." It's a major change, but the courts are supporting it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Pseudo-Kiddie Porn More

Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Pseudo-Kiddie Porn

Comments Filter:
  • Saying that there is nothing wrong with certain strings of 1's and 0's is like saying that there is nothing wrong with the certain way that light-waves bounce off a surface which retains certain waves and prevents them from escape so as to display what appears to be child pornography.
    ---
    seumas.com
  • I thought that the problem with morality and ethics is that I'm always right? (Apply to each individual who comments on their own morality or ethics).
    ---
    seumas.com
  • RE: :) I just wanted to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the term.

    I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your attempts at being sympathetic to the devil are lost on me. Totally. If your friend has a picture of a little girl (or boy) being sexually interfered with or even if it's just she or he being exploited for erotic purposes, that means that somewhere there is a little girl or boy in the hands of people who are doing this to him or her. And if he's collecting, trading, enjoying, whatever said material, he's contributing to it. I don't know why you're having difficulty understanding this.

    RE: In this, I expect that you will stop equating the word pedophila with 'abusers of children', because that can cause innocent people to be persecuted for the abuse of children.

    And is he really innocent? He's somehow managed to get hold of child porn. I don't think it's something you wake up one morning and magically find on your hard drive. He's gone looking for it. Innocent is the little child who has no idea why the man with the camera is taking her clothes off, not the guy having totally inappopriate thoughts while looking at the picture.

    RE: Here's the problem: I like my friend. I get drunk with him.. we go to clubs and talk about chicks.

    Well, there are things about him you didn't know.

    RE: He pays his taxes.. he loves his girlfriend.

    Does SHE know there are pictures of little girls on his hard drive? I don't think so. Wow, this just gets better and better.

    RE: He has lots of friends at work, and writes damned fine code. :)

    I'm a fan of Java as well (bada, boom, ching), but this has nothing to do with the fact that he is involved in something very dark and abusive. Did you expect rapists and murderers to look like hunchbacked, evil people? Guess what, they're next door. There are children out there who are being physically abused and noone would ever guess cause Daddy's a fine upstanding pillar of the community active in his church etc etc etc dosen't fit the stereotype of the alcoholic in the trailer park.
  • Heh... The defendant got off?

    I'm sorry. That was horrible humor. I'll stick the No Score +1 Bonus on right this damn minute...
    ---
    seumas.com

  • Well, there are some problems with that too. First of all, everyone caught with diddler material will claim it's computer generated. That means all child pr0n will move to CDROMS and therefore noone will ever be charged or convicted, and the molestation will continue. In fact, it might get worse because with the legal risk removed, or worse, if the politically correct liberals poison the collective mind of this country and have everyone believe it's OK to have sex with children. Second of all, mocked up or not, that kind of material is used to get children to ACTUALLY perform those acts, so there's proven harm resulting from child pr0n production. I'm not even touching about effects of pr0nography on people's minds, cause it can't be proven either way, but there's enough sickos out there without society giving more people ideas...
  • You see, the idea of harm reduction comes into play, here. Someone on heroin has problems, and should be treated as such. Speech, depending on what it is, doesn't cause harm. Kiddie porn does cause harm, a lot of harm, a lot of irreperable harm. Stopping some kids from showing off they can copy a DVD is trivial. Stopping people from abusing and humiliating children for fun and profit is paramount. Most dangerous criminals were abused as children and there are proven links between abuse and violent behaviour later on in life. This isn't just some little girl's problem, it's everyone's problem.
  • Granted, images of child pornography have always been illegal, but the difference is that in the past it was impossible to create such images without actually abusing children.

    What about drawings and paintings?
    __
  • Pictures of genital or anal region of any person under the age of 18.

    It can't be literally so. How does the police document cases of abuse on children if they can not take pictures?

    And it was also pointed the case of medical training.
    __
  • Um.. not the article does not say that.. to quote the law as stated in the article.. "any visual depiction, including any photography, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture ... of sexually explicit conduct, where ... such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Noticibally absent is any statement on the realism of the image in question, such as the word "actual" in addition the law also classes any image that... "is advertised,promoted, presented, described or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." ...as child porn, so even animation could fall under that catagory if it's advertised that way.
  • In the not-so-ancient China, you are married off when you are 13 or 14. And have kids by 15.

    I think this story is replicated many times through many other cultures : Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek etc..

    Then came along Judeo-Christeo ethics, and there goes the neigbourhood.

    You can say that out current cultural norms, of which the laws are based on, has the last say.

    Not that that's anything bad of course : it's just a fact of life. If you want to whine about it, you had better start a new culture, or a new religion.

  • There is no proof, or even reliable evidence, that homosexuality is not a (mental) disease/disorder

    And just how, praytell, would one go about proving a negative anyway?

    (it's easier to see if you take your head out of the sand, btw.)


    -The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
  • Yes, it is literally so. Here is the text from the bill (verbatim)

    163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
    (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
    (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
    (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or
    (b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

    How does the police document cases of abuse on children if they can not take pictures?

    Presumably, the police wouldn't arrest themselves. :o)

    This is just a bad law, plain and simple. The example of abuse documentation or medical training are just two examples of how poorly thought-out it is... the amazing thing is that the politicians who passed this piece of garbage were told that it needed to be fixed, but they passed it anyway.

  • I like to watch the sopranos on sunday nights.

    does that make me a mobster? should i be thrown in prison?

  • As I've said before and will say AGAIN. Given that child pr0n is either evidence of a crime or used to get children to commit crimes, never mind the fact that wanting to look at same is unhealthy, very suspect, and might well push a "attracted to but wouldn't actually follow through on his desires" type over the edge...

    I'm sure there are heroin addicts who get on with life quite fine, thanks. But many of them end up slumped behind dumpsters raging with HIV and hepatitis, which is why in the interest of the public and private good, heroin is illegal.

    Everyone accused of real child pr0n will try and get it thrown out on a "this is digitally altered" technicality, which will make prosecuting the real producers next to impossible. Only the truly sick (child pr0n consumers) would support the notion of making fake child pr0n illegal.
  • I'm not saying he's evil, I'm saying he's sick. I'm saying that people who want to produce child pr0n are evil.
  • When I was a kid I used to have toy guns that looked for all the world like Uzis, Colt 1911s, Beretta 92FSs, HK MP5s, you name what else too. Now they are all made using silly colored plastic, it's sad that things have changed so much that it's necessary to do that because it's now possible that a cop could encounter a kid with a REAL Beretta. Several kids have been killed over the years for brandishing real looking toy guns.

    LK
  • In the not-so-ancient China, you are married off when you are 13 or 14. And have kids by 15.

    I think this story is replicated many times through many other cultures : Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek etc..
    This was actually true was pretty much the entire planet until the early 20th century. Even in the good old USA, marriages in the early to mid teens were the norm up until the Great Depression / Prohibition era. If you have a living relative who was born before the Great Depression, ask them how old THEIR parents were when they got married. The answer may suprise you. Depending on your age, the odds are that your great-grandparents were married and raising kids well before their 18th birthdays.

    It has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian religion. In the Jewish religion, a person is considered to be an adult at the age of 13 -The whole point of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah is to celebrate the passage into adulthood.

    If you check the history books, you will find that the age-of-consent, statutory rape, and sodomy laws in almost every State were adopted during, or just before, Prohibition. The "moral crusade" that swept the industrialized world in the aftermath of WWI inspired a lot of other silly laws besides just making booze illegal.

  • written stories describing minors engaged in sexual acts, whether or not such stories are real or imagined

    This will be a surefire way to assure molestation and child-rape continues on under the blankets of Canada. If you can't even write about it, then it's difficult to make people aware of it. Maybe the next step is to ban the publication of any books which talk about crimes. If people don't know that crimes are committed, they won't occur!
    ---
    seumas.com

  • Its important to note that its the crown attornies that have appealed this to the supreme court, because the British Columbia court ruled in favour of the person charged. Hence, possesion of these images is not currently a crime in that province.

    This is one area where the Canadian Alliance would invoke the NOT WITHSTANDING clause in the charter, and why I just cannot fathom voting for a party that endorses invoking this clause for every judgement they don't like.
  • if the litmus test for being a child molestor is viewing child pornography,
    The issue at stake here is not accusations of being a child molestor, it's accusations of owning child porn. Big diff.
  • What one person finds essential free speech someone else will always find offensive. Persecuted and paranoid individuals will always find something sick and disgusting about what you love. Kiddie porn is one case where almost everyone agrees that it is offensive. If you want to see what "offensive" means, take a look at this review of the Truman Show [christiananswers.net] (actually the viewer responses). The site is full of them. Chip away at your freedoms and soon you will have none in the face of people like this.
  • Your smarter then you think .. there is nothing wrong with photons that make kiddy porn. Photons are an emergent property of the structure of the universe. 1's and 0's are an emergent property of math. WE give meaning to these 1's and 0's ...

    Its hard to get indignant about emergent properties of the universe!

    Once again, I say ... stop child abuse, not bit strings :)

  • I must say I'm not sure here...

    I'd much rather have the pedophiles sitting home modelling 3D images than out abusing children...

    If there's no victim, then what's to determine what's a crime and what isn't? Who is to judge which of the pictures I keep on my computer are illegal or not? And who's to judge what "looks like" child porn or not?

  • RE: I consider you to be a more dangerous person than my friend.

    In that you are wrong. If I was to know of someone out there molesting children, and do nothing, that would be the dangerous thing. Because those children grow up. And many of them become VERY ANGRY adults.

    Normal human beings find kiddie porn sick and think that diddlers and those who agree with them should be locked up. Go into any prison system and you will find that diddlers do not last long. There was a case in france recently where some construction workers came across a guy trying to rape a little girl. They attached him to the wall with an air hammer until the cops arrived. Well, actually, until someone arrived with bolt cutters to get him off the wall. Were they jailed? No.

    RE: Perhaps you are so insecure in yourself that you can't help announcing your rightousness to others, but that is no excuse.

    Oh spare me. Hear that sound? It's the sound of the world's smallest violin, and it's playing for you. Your friend I advise to get help. Your response is to tell me that I'm not politically correct because I don't equate the desire to interfere sexually with children with normal, adult, consenting behaviour??? Well you my friend are very deluded. You have no idea how pervasive, how poisonous, and how very very serious this issue is.
  • That was the best summary this discussion could ever get... beautifully said. If you don't mind I'll save it and keep as a quote.

    Thanks.

  • Alright, I'll freely admit I am not thinking straight, and in fact said some things I don't mean. I really wouldn't kill anyone. I might fly into a massive rage and smack them around before calling 911, but not kill.

    This is a VERY sore subject with me, I was almost attacked myself at a young age. As far as I am concerned, if someone has urges then no, they shouldn't be jailed for it. But participating in kiddie porn isn't right. At all. And trafficking in it, or any reasonable facsimile thereof, should be a crime.
  • That was an exaggeration and turn of phrase. I'm sorry, I want to make it clear I wouldn't physically kill someone. I meant it in the same way someone would say "I'll give them trouble" as in "I'll kill that kid when he gets home" meaning to ground, etc. but said as such for emphasis. Sorry for any fright, fear, worry, or pain that caused. I shouldn't argue about this, I have too strong an opinion about it.
  • "tax-evasion, recreational drug use, bootlegging, copyright infingement, etc. all victimless crimes, all being prosecuted at this momment"

    Is tax-evasion a victimless crime? Everyone else who pays taxes is a victim if someone fails to pay over an extended period of time, because budgets have to be adjusted and taxes have to meet those budgets.

    Recreational drug use has arguments both ways. For example, if a person who is a parent with children home is using recreational drugs while their children are running about, Child Protective Services has every right to intervene citing the illicit and imparing substance is interfering with being a parent. I feel the same way about excessive alcohol consumption around kids. I don't know of very many situations like in "Eyes Wide Shut" where the couple engages in drug use because they can afford it and don't have to do anything f*ed up to get them...

    Bootlegging and copyright infringement can be seen as turning the copyright holder and/or artist into a victim. If I were performing, I don't think I'd want people taperecording my performance and selling it, they didn't DO anything to deserve money from that. Copyright can be applied the same way. I do think there are abuses on the other side too, like CSS and the like, but these ALL generally have victims.

    "Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
  • Well, I've retracted the statement I made above.

    Look, all I'm saying is this. There is really no argument for child pornography. At the very least, it encourages dangerous feelings in people, at the very most, it is literally evidence of a crime in as much as it is the result of crimes against a child. And it is used as a tool by child molesters to lure children into their webs.

    Your friend needs to know this. And to get help. Please get him that help.
  • What is a minor indeed? And what the fuck is pornography? When I was 12, I got on the internet for the first time, for obvious reasons: Because I'd heard that there was porn there. So I set out to get porn, and what kind of porn do you think I was looking for? I was looking for porn of kids my age, what you are so negatively calling kiddie-porn.

    Now, I would be the first person to stand up and say that no children should be forced to do anything, including anything sexual. But if we've defining "children" as anyone under 18, then there are lots of "children" out there who have sex. Let me say that again, they have sex, totally voluntarily. Hell, they even enjoy it! I started having sex when I was 15, and I was trying to have sex since I was 12. This is natural, and I think the real change that needs to take place is not in legislation, but in our rediculous sexual taboos.

    Joshua

    BTW, it should be noted that this is not an attack on Seumas' post that I am replying to, this just seemed like a good place to put this.
  • I almost agreed with you till the last bit. If you want freedom of data for kiddie porn, then along with that copyright should be out the window completely. That's putting monitory interests above the interests of the children that were molested to create kiddie porn. If any control of data is allowed, things like kiddie porn where someone's rights were violated to create it should not be allowed.

    Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on these issues.

    IMHO of course.

  • Simply target these groups or remove them from society.

    I realy hope that you're joking. Virtually ALL rapists are male. Do you wish to remove most of them from society and place the rest under constant police monitor to prevent them from raping anyone?

    LK
  • Uh... Wouldn't the Canadian Alliance have to be leading the BC provincial government to do that? Do you actually forsee that happening at some time in the future? =)

    The fact that the Alliance contradicts itself in its support for both 'a strong' charter of rights and freedoms and the right to use the notwithstanding clause is definitely the reason I'm not voting for them...
  • It's very comforting to hear from someone else who feels the same way. This issue of the not-withstanding clause seems to be an absolute nonissue. It really worries me.
  • I despise Child Pornography as much as the next person. However, consider the following. If you have your closet pedophile, would you rather he A: look at pictures, whack off, and get it out of his system, or B: go find a child, violate him/her, and get it out of his system.

    In case A, this person could otherwise be a functional, safe member of society. He has a problem and he has found a way to deal with it without hurting anyone in the process. He can't go to a psycologist about it anymore, because doctor/patient confidentiality in such cases isn't very solid. I could tell my doctor that I murdered 10 people and he couldnt' say anything about it. But if I tell him I touched a child he HAS to report it.

    The REAL issue here isn't regarding actual porn but benign pictures of minors that aren't in any way involved in sexual situations, but someone PERCEIVES them to be sexual and a braindead judge agrees. Its not too hard in today's society of the easily offended that someone could look at a picture of a girl in a bikini and find it offending. To make matters worse, it doesn't even have to be a minor.

    -Restil
  • AFAIK (I haven't used that in a while) Japanese hentai has a bunch of 15, 16 year old girls pretending to be barely 18 being gang raped by aliens. Isn't that also "against the law" or are drawings any different than CGI? Also, does that mean that if someone gets a Britney fake and says that she was 17 when that was made is it a crime? Damn, does that mean that everybody has to throw out their favorite Britney fake where Eminem is 'taking her roughly'?

    Anyway, on a similar note, when two 16 year old kids are caught having sex should both of them be acused of abusing a minor? Times have changed people, 15 year old girls ARE NOT the same 15 year old girls of 15 years ago!

    --
    All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...

  • Good. (Score:1)

    by xTown ( 94562 )
    I was involved (on the side of good) in a case where the defendant got off with one count of posession of child pornography even though he had hundreds of megs of images. The reason? "Computer-generated images" are not the same as pictures.

    I'd have to say, if that kind of thing were prevented from ever happening again, that would be very very good.

  • Canada's Laws are contradictory at best...

    Age of consent for vaginal intercourse is 14.

    Age of consent for anal intercourse is 18. (Although this is being appealed as unconstitutional, apparently a guy thinks it discriminates against gay men)

    Under bill C-128 (currently before the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional), the following is illegal:
    • Pictures of genital or anal region of any person under the age of 18.
    • written stories describing minors engaged in sexual acts, whether or not such stories are real or imagined
    • Pictures of genital or anal region of any person pretending to be a minor


    The parts in bold are (supposedly) the reasons the laws are under appeal - in reality, the guy who took this to the supreme court got busted for real kiddie porn, but he's claiming that the law is unconstitutional (which it is), so he can't be charged under it.

    There was a national cop convention last year, in which Chiefs of Police of various cities across the country said they are going to petition the government to raise the age of consent to 16 - whether they'll succeed or not is anyone's guess

  • Anyway, on a similar note, when two 16 year old kids are caught having sex should both of them be acused of abusing a minor?

    In Canada (and almost definitely other Common-law countries) it is not considered illegal for minors to engage in "normal sexual experimentation". As a result, if the participants are within (I think) two years in age, then no crime is deemed to have taken place.

    Also, the age of consent here is ~15 (last time I checked ;) -- of course, IANAL

  • The article states, "Congress passed the CPPA in 1996 to address new problems caused by technological advances, such as the digital alteration of photographic images to create child pornography." The author doesn't seem to appreciate the difference between altering real photos and completely synthetic imagery. And with good software there needn't be any "pornographic" files on the computer - just 3D models that software can cause to appear pornographic. The 3D models themselves might not be pornographic until altered by software. If nothing is saved to disk is this legal? Obviously the law isn't compatible with state of the art in computer graphics systems.
  • The point is, it's not illegal to own photographs of somebody murdering a person. Murder is just as illegal as conducting a kiddie porn photo shoot, but photographs of murders are not illegal to own. Why?

  • LIke it or not ... (Score:4)

    by OmegaDan ( 101255 ) on Friday November 10, 2000 @09:28AM (#632386) Homepage
    Like it or not, kiddy porn is pretty much an acid test of our rights ...

    I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement that its wrong to abuse children...

    But kiddy porn, is, just data. its 1's and 0's ... the fact that the court choses to view some 1's and 0's as kiddy porn, others as constitutionally protected speach, others as renegade code for pirating DVD's, and yet others as pattented (ie gif's) -- is wrong.

    I feel in the long run its an abridgment of my rights not to be able to have ceartin types of data in my posession ... its all just data! If they want to stop child abuse -- stop drug use, which is responsible for something 80% of child abuse. It always easy to ring the kiddy porn bell for political reasons ... most people hate it, and those who don't, aren't very vocal :)

    I'd like to see a couple ammendments to the constitution, something along the lines of the universal turing principle right ... the right to execute any algorithim! And the right to have to have any bit string (with modest exemptions for copyrighted material for say, 5 years :)

    The measure of our freedom is now how we treat the speach we like, but how we tolerate the speach we hate.

  • ...but photographs of murders are not illegal to own. Why?
    Because there's less of a market for snuff than for kiddie porn, so less reason to legislate against it. There's probably less evidence that enjoying snuff is linked to a tendency to commit murder than with child porn to child abuse. All the above is, of course, speculation.
  • ...that get the attention. In Philadelphia, Pa, US last year they caught some guy that was abusing neighborhood children as young as 6 for about 20 years. And yes, I'm sure you'll find pics of girls that young in the porn news groups. That's the stuff that bothers me.

    Young teenagers may at least have enough world experence to be able to deal with the abuse to some degree.

    ...and consentual sex by two 16 year old "kids" is a totally different kettel of fish.

  • I'm conflicted about this (Score:3)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Friday November 10, 2000 @09:33AM (#632389) Homepage Journal
    On a strictly moral or ethical standpoint I can understand the prohibition on kiddie porn. In cases of actual pictures, some child must be abused to create the images. In the case of cgi, it will be pedophiles who are seeking it out and it may embolden them to to take the step of making their fantasy reality.

    On the other hand we have free speech issues. If we can decide that one type of image is illegal, how long until someone tries to draw a link between all types of images and sexual violence?

    I can only resolve these two by thinking that each incident should be considered on a case by case basis.

    LK

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday November 10, 2000 @09:41AM (#632390)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • That's why I fear the Republican agenda, with all of their NRA support. More kids have been killed over the years by REAL guns (12 kids a day in fact), then the several you mentioned for brandishing real looking toy guns...

    That figure on the number of kids killed with not by guns is questionable at best and an outright lie at worst.

    Half of these "kids" are 18 and 19. For children 0-17 years of age, 6 per day are killed with guns. Granted, 1 child killed is too many, but let's not use lies to make the point huh?

    Lastly, I'm talking about in the US, I have no access to worldwide figures.

    I do not always support the NRA, in fact they are far too willing to compromise for my liking.

    LK
  • It's my understanding that in this case, computer-generated doesn't mean "created entirely with Adobe Illustrator (or whatever)", it means either a .gif or a .jpeg *or* a composited image featuring, say, Haley Joel Osment's head next to a ten-foot-long johnson. In the case I spoke about below, we were talking gifs and jpegs. The defendant was able to receive only probation, no jail time, even though he had hundreds of megs of kidporn on his computer.

    Also "only appear to be of a minor" means that you have an 18-year-old who looks 12.

    I don't think computer graphics comes into this, to be honest. At least, that's not the impression I get from reading the article.

  • If you don't set the standard of proof in child pornography cases so that the offence is of possessing or making images of what appear to be children, those who have to detect and prosecute this stuff are left in the invidious position of, every time they bring charges, having to prove that Exhibit A is of an actual child or of someone who was a child at the time rather than something mocked up in PhotoShop or similar.

    It's not about ensuring that ugly pictures get prosecuted, it's about denying those who make such pictures a plausible defence that'd get them away with it given a sufficiently suggestible jury (ie about 90% of them).

  • Absolutely. There's no way that we should need proof in a fair legal system. Suspision should be enough.
  • You raise a very practical point. However, let me ask you two questions which just became very important:

    Does the woman in your favorite porno look 18 to you?

    Does she look 18 to everybody else?

    Now, instead of true physical age (which is a pretty concrete absolute thing once determined), we have the appearance of youth (which is very subjective) as the standard by which guilt is determined. Not good.

    If I marry a young wife, maybe I should refuse to make love to her until she's old and saggy, just so 3 out of 4 neighbors don't think I'm a pedophile.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • In the states, you become a legal adult at 18. You still can't drink or run for president, but you can certainly buy cigarettes, sign contracts, vote, or have nekkid pictures taken of you.
  • What state do you live in? I've never heard of a state in the US that defines a minor as anything over 18.

    Also, since the law is open to interpretation but the judge/jury, I doubt either of you would have gotten in any trouble.

    --

  • I don't know if it's ever occurred to you, but kiddie porn is actually evidence of a crime. In order to get kiddie porn you have to do something to a kiddie, so encouraging the production of same is encouraging the exploitation of children.

    And it turns out that people who do exploit children use kiddie porn to lure these kids into doing things the abuser wants: "See, these kids are doing it too. It's normal. It's OK."

    I realise that there are some people out there that believe that there should be no restrictions on speech - but there are exceptions, especially in such a case as this, where it can be PROVEN that people are harmed in the creation and use thereof.
  • The dose of reality is that you have a friend who is sexually interested in children. He should get help. I know in this permissive age we seem to think everything's OK, but children do NOT have the same headspace as adults, and the taboo against exploiting children exists for a reason. Ask anyone dealing with the childhood trauma of abuse.

    Child pornography is used to excite people who have an interest in molesting children. I refuse to use the term "pedophile" because that means "lover of children" and people who have TRUE love of children do not want to use them for their own gratification nor exploit them.

    Child pornography is also used by abusers to lure children into performing certain acts. The rationale is "See, it's OK. Look at these pictures. These kids are doing it too."

    Go read up on the issue, like I did (check out Andrew Vachss' web site, the Zero) and it'll become clear as to why every effort MUST be made to stamp out child pr0n. It is NOT an "alternative lifestyle" (there are not two consenting adults), it is NOT something cool or remotely healthy. Yes, call the cops. Because wherever that guy got those JPGs or whatever from, there are some little girls and boys being abused.

  • Re:...a dose of reality. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The dose of reality is that you have a friend who is sexually interested in children. He should get help.

    There is no evidence suggesting that pedophilia can be "cured" any more than homosexuality, which most rational human beings don't consider a disease.

    I know in this permissive age we seem to think everything's OK, but children do NOT have the same headspace as adults, and the taboo against exploiting children exists for a reason. Ask anyone dealing with the childhood trauma of abuse.

    Huh?

    Why are you intentionally blurring the lines between sex and abuse? This is exactly the type of shit that causes hateful agression in the first place! Dude - chill. Some times bad things happen to good people. People get shot, people get beaten, people lose all of their money, and sometimes people get raped. I don't dispute that. But the solution to this problem is *not* to redefine what we consider abuse! Just growing the set of actions which we consider "abuse" does not prevent it!

    Child pornography is used to excite people who have an interest in molesting children.

    It's also used by pedophiles. What's your point?

    I refuse to use the term "pedophile" because that means "lover of children" and people who have TRUE love of children do not want to use them for their own gratification nor exploit them.

    Child pornography is also used by abusers to lure children into performing certain acts. The rationale is "See, it's OK. Look at these pictures. These kids are doing it too."

    Oh.. I get it.

    Look. I don't think there's anything that I can say to inspire some sort of reason. You've been so hard-wired by 80's / 90's society that any citation of historical beliefs, situations, etc., would be of little relevance.

  • the following is illegal: Pictures of genital or anal region of any person under the age of 18.

    So how are pediatricians supposed to learn how to treat diseases in that area of a child's body?

  • There AREN'T any children actually in this at this point, that's what the entire basis for the discussion IS! Last time I checked, victimless crimes weren't crimes... The only major abuse of this that I am aware of is when recreational mary-jane users get busted. I have seen some really interesting character models and skins for Poser, and many of the images that people are making for the CGI erotica sites ARE of 'appearing underage' people. The thing that is ironic is that there were never any children involved in the first place. Yeah, I find some of the pictures distasteful, and I have been offended by some, but I don't have the right to not be offended. In fact, I don't even have to frequent sites like these if I don't want to.

    I personally doubt that images like these contribute to the criminal psyche, though not being a psychologist I cannot say definitively either way. I wish the court would join us and educate itself about technology and how technology works, so stupid judgements become less of a topic on /.

    "Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • In order to get kiddie porn you have to do something to a kiddie

    That's exactly how it used to be. It's no longer true. The real battleground here is simulated child pornography, images are created using compositing and do not involve Actual Suffering. I think this has to be allowed, if only because it opens a huge subjective can of worms. Is that drawing of an underdeveloped 18-year-old, or a 15-year-old? Do you want a judge deciding, after the fact, when prison is the alternative? Talk about a prior restraint on free speech...
  • tax-evasion, recreational drug use, bootlegging, copyright infingement, etc. all victimless crimes, all being prosecuted at this momment
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • If people don't know that crimes are committed, they won't occur!

    Wasn't that one of the themes of the book? With Newspeak, there wasn't enough vocabulary to commit thoughtcrime, thus thoughtcrime would be abolished when Newspeak was completely adopted as the only language for communication.
  • How is this flamebait??? maybe the moderator should be flamed. This persons opinion is a compassionate and well illustrated opinion.
  • While I agree that our freedom of speech is very precious and should be vehemously protected I have only 2 things I value above this freedom. It's human life and children. I know it's been said, but obviously a child was abused for that photo. I don't think I can agree with the comment of drug abuse factor without statistical evidence. However I do think child abuse behavior is simular to drug abuse (I am a recovering drug addict sober fro 5 years). As a drug addict I could not stay with one drug, it stopped working so I would have to find something else or stronger. I child porn addict is PROBABLY the same mentality, after a while child porn stops working and the pedophile needs more, at first maybe just watching children playing in the park, but then further down the road the obsession pushes the person to actually physically abuse children. No child is worth the right to have psuedo port pictures. PERIOD. perhaps when you have children it will be more clear.
  • If they can crack down on anything that resembles kiddie porn, it makes it easier to crack down on kiddie porn. The purpose of this it so that the authorities don't have to find the poor kid in the picture to get a conviction.

  • The Thought Police are coming! (Score:3)

    by pestie ( 141370 ) on Friday November 10, 2000 @11:06AM (#632411)
    This is one more step toward American society becoming a police state. As the news post says, this is a major shift in the intent of the law here. I fully agree that child pornography should be illegal and that those who abuse children should be punished severely. However, the law has shifted from criminalizing abuse to criminalizing imagery. Granted, images of child pornography have always been illegal, but the difference is that in the past it was impossible to create such images without actually abusing children. Now that's all changed, yet the law does not recognize the distinction. I guess I'm not too surprised, though, as my understanding is that any images that appear to depict children in sexual situations - even if the models are of legal age - are illegal. The courts are basically attempting to criminalize being sexually aroused by children. Sure, it's easy to argue that that's a good thing, but where does it end? Whose rights to free thought will be taken away next?
  • That's actually... correct.
    "No, officer, I really do have a kiddie porn anti-fetish! Seeing it turns me off!"
  • The most beautyfull girl I've ever seen in my life was this 12 year old I knew, some, 10 years ago ... she "looked" 20 at the time ... but she was perfect in every sense of the word, sweet, kind, beautyfull beyond words ...

    I submit that age is a human concept :)

  • Thats the problem about morality and ethics ... they're soo hard to agree on!

    at best morality and ethics are subjective... The arrogance of small minds is pretty amazing :) Think about christians and abortion ... those dudes think they know whats right for every human on earth ... immagine the arrogance.

    what people need to realize is the "slippery slope" does apply here ...

  • The children!!!

  • Re:LIke it or not ... (Score:4)

    by tewl ( 226290 ) on Friday November 10, 2000 @12:27PM (#632416)
    If they want to stop child abuse -- stop drug use, which is responsible for something 80% of child abuse.

    Not sure that I agree with you there....where did you get that statistic?

    As a child I suffered from both physical and sexual abuse. After being in touch with hundreds if not thousands of people who also were on the receiving end of such atrocious behavior, it was very rare for it to be due to drugs.

    What drives pedophiles to commit such acts is usually a mental disorder or even a hormonal inbalance. True, drugs can makes these worse, but they are there from the start.

  • If it can be proven that a person was involved in taking pictures of children or knowingly distributing child porn then it should be illegal. If there is any question whatsoever that the girl is over 18 and they can't prove the person thought it was then I don't think they should be punished. Also even if they thought the girl was under 18, if it's proven she wasn't then I think they should have to let them go.
  • Think about christians and abortion ... those dudes think they know whats right for every human on earth ...

    Taking the conversation here would only lead this discussion downhill. I'm a pagan and I happen to agree with the XTians on child murder.

    That's what laws do. Laws allow for a society to dictate what is acceptable behavior for all of its members.

    LK

  • Re:I'm conflicted about this (Score:3)

    by tewl ( 226290 ) on Friday November 10, 2000 @01:49PM (#632419)
    Very true, but remember, what's right for you is not right for everyone.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm

    "Gods and goddesses are beginning to re-inhabit the Western world. Infant sacrifice -- there are 52 million a year. It is paganism." Dr. John Patrick, professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada. (He was referring to the number of abortions performed worldwide).

    Also....

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm

    "I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made." G.W. Bush (R), Governor of Texas. Interviewed on ABC's Good Morning America, 1999-JUN-24 by Peggy Wehmeyer. Comment relates to the rights of Wiccan soldiers to have the same religious rights as others in the military.

  • Imagine you have a multimedia authoring tool that lets you, at your own screen, adjust some controls and visualize whatever you specify.

    Lets say you can tweak the age and appearance of each actor independantly. Also, you can play back "script templates", which tell the virtual actors what to do.

    If the scripts include sexual scenarios (which would by far be the biggest market for this!), some states of this dynamic simulation could be illegal.

    Are you a criminal if they bust on you when you have a dynamic kiddie-porn image on your screen?

    What if its not up on the screen, but the log file shows you had the controls both set to "12" and "Fuck" at some time before?

    The point I am driving at here is there is a subtle boundary between your fantasy realized in multimedia and in your own mind.

    To me, if no child was actually exploited in the physical world, then there are no grounds for prosecution.
  • . Granted, images of child pornography have always been illegal Wrong bro, child pornography was made illegal in the 70's ... america survived 200 years and it didn't colapse under the weight of the perverted masses..
  • Look, nowhere at all do I suggest jailing someone for BEING anything. And you can knock off the "pedophiles are misunderstood, snif, they're people, just like you and me" crap for a moment.

    There are also people who have homicidal urges. And strangely enough, when we identify people who do these kinds of things, we take em out of society. I'm waiting for you to bleeding heart that "homicidal people are people too, snif, they're people just like you and me."

    RE: Why are you intentionally blurring the lines between sex and abuse? This is exactly the type of shit that causes hateful agression in the first place! Dude - chill.

    Sexually interfering with a child IS abusive. Period. I know that some lib lefty thinktank has said that it's OK, but lib lefty thinktanks have also produced reports saying that it's an act of violence to teach your child to read. I suggest quite strongly that you wake up. Whereas I wasn't sexually interfered with as a child, I went to a school where it went on. And some of those people tried to kill themselves. One tried to kill someone else.

    It repulses me that while there's ample evidence that using a child for sexual gratification is wrong and hurtful, we like to use "nicey nicey" words like FONDLING rather than SEXUAL ASSAULT, and "paedophile" rather than "sick bastard who wants to diddle kids."
  • An accomplice? In what Orwellian nightmare do you live?

    If the police ask this man whether he has ever seen dirty pictures in that house, he might be legally obliged to answer truthfully, but he is NO required to report every possible crime.

    Since possession of images of immoral acts is so terribly wrong, by the way, I take it you have ripped out all the pages in your history texts that picture, or even describe, Nazi death camps, the Inquisition, etc? Obviously you can't read the paper or watch TV news, because all sorts of crimes are displayed there.

  • That's what a paedophile is. That's like saying "I don't understand why you equate being a thief with stealing stuff."

    Even if your friend only has pornography lying around, he's TECHNICALLY SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO ABUSE CHILDREN. It's just as much a crime to pay someone to make a snuff video and watch it as it is to actually kill someone yourself.

    Clue train pulled into the station yet?
  • According to the Webster's (online) pedophile: one afflicted with pedophilia: Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.

    Now, this technically in and of itself doesn't warrant censure - the person is mentally ill (note that you suggested Webster's, and it says perversion - not quite what you anticipated!). However, your friend (assuming it's you - you AC's look all alike) who collects pedophilic material is contributing to the abuse of children, (if noone buys it, then they won't make it) and has evidence of a crime in his house. You are enabling him by supporting his position and not reporting him to the authorities, just like not reporting a drunk driver who hasn't killed anyone yet. Intervene for this person's own good, and because there are children in the area.
  • Sorry, explain who benefits again?
    --
  • pedophiles are not a problem. pedosexuals are. it's perfectly alright to love kids. it is not alright to fuck kids.

    //rdj
  • this law is not completely unique, I know of one other law that states that 'if it looks like , it IS '

    dutch gunlaw. probably european too, but don't take my word for it.

    a toy gun that is indistinguishable(sp?) from a real gun is considered a real gun for most purposes, and requires a permit. That's why toy guns are sick colours and have a large, red cap on the barrel. a toy gun that looks like a real gun can easily be used for a holdup.

    //rdj
  • the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

    That would except abuse documentation and medical teaching, in my understanding.
    __
  • Well, I hope you don't discover someone you care about is a Nazi! How would you ever have a deep, caring, and meaningful philosophical discussion on Slashdot about Nazis? It's impossible -- people have learned to just SHUT THE FUCK UP when the conversation turns to Nazis. We just don't talk about Nazis any more. And its really, really sad -- Nazis are people with feelings too! Just like pedophiles!

    Shut up, guys. Blue, stop arguing with the AC Troll. Troll, go boil your head in acid. We all know the fat gay pedophile "friends" you keep talking about are really just you. And any of you other Humbert Humberts out there reading this -- go douse yourself with gas, and set yourself on fire.
  • Well, let's put it this way. The girl in realdoll who wanted a child one so her father would leave her alone - isn't that statement alone a testament to how evil attacking children this way is? I hate to say this, but having fake child pr0n will NOT stop predatory behavior. In fact, it will feed it, and aid and abet it, for reasons I have already gone into. The response to "I like to hurt children" isn't "well hey, let's feed this fantasy of yours" it should be some kind of therapy.

  • ...a dose of reality. (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10, 2000 @03:28PM (#632432)
    This is truly awesome (not in the common definition of awesome). I mean .. this is truly disheartening.

    If you are offended by people's opinions which differ substantially from the norm, please move along to the next comment. You may become as ill as I did, reading the article. :)

    This law is almost beyond comprehension to me, a person who identifies with people stricken with pedophilia. You see, I used to be a gay basher. I used to make fun of fags all the time. They seriously used to scare me. One day, I found out that one of my best friends was gay.

    It was like a blow to the mind. I was like.. holy shit. Man.. what should I do? This faggot .. this stupid shitpacking faggot is my best friend. Does that make me a fag too?

    You have to understand. I was only 15.. and people made fun of me for being slightly overweight. Any chance I'd get to poke fun at a group of people, I'd do it - this raised my own status. Anyway... In the course of a few seconds (which seemed like an eternity).. I realised that I was a stupid person. I was the one who was derranged - attacking something because it was popular to do so. My friend told me what it was like. And I accepted that. Bam.. just like that. It's like.. something you believe in your heart - something you'd beat up someone for.. something which inspires your hate so much.. it was all so wrong.

    I'm grown up now. And I found out that one of my other friends I had known for years has an attraction to young girls. I was searching through his hard disk for mp3s (while he was out pickin up a case of beer) and found some .jpg's that were poorly hidden. You know what?

    I used to hate on pedophiles too, cause that was the hip thing to do. But instead of barfing at the thought, I checked them out. Hmm. Not much to comment on. Most were pictures of girls, clothed, non clothed, a few engauged in 'sexual acts'. None of them violent, or even what (if it were older people) any would consider reprehensible.

    Ok.. so I'm faced with a decision. Do I pick up the phone and call the cops on a friend? No. Cause that .. just .. ain't .. cool. Instead, I closed it all, sat on his couch, waited for him to get home, then carefully asked him about it.

    You know what I found?

    He's still a pretty decent guy.

    He told me about this realization that he came to when he was like 16. That he found younger girls more attractive. He told me about the frustration he went through for years; something this horrible beyond comprehension is nigh impossible to even *discuss* with other people. I mean... not confess, discuss .

    I was the first person (outside the Internet) who found out about this hidden reality.

    Were this channel .. this.. doorway of the Internet, unfettered, private communications, unavailable, he would have lived his entire life in miserable silence. No one deserves that, for being something. Not niggers, not faggots, not jews, ... not anything that people, without provocation, are able to hate. Like that.

    My friend has never, and does not plan to ever have sexual contact with a real child, with or without consent.

    Ok - so.. the moral of the story. :)

    Please. Stop the hatered. Stop the propaganda. Stop the fanatacism. Not all 'fags' are rapists. Not all niggers are counterproductive banes on society, and not all pedophiles are child molesters.

    This law is intended to punish people for what they are . Not what they do. - Posting anonymously, for obvious reasons.

  • What is a Minor? (Score:3)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Friday November 10, 2000 @04:18PM (#632433)
    A little story here...

    When I was 17 and my girlfriend at the time was 22, I was a minor. If she and I both posessed a picture of us half-nude, nude or even just sexually suggestive, she would technically be in trouble with the law over this.

    However, in the states, you are a minor until the age of 21. You may be old enough at 18,19 or 20 to smoke, drive, vote, pay taxes, be charged as an adult in any crime or even die for your country -- but you can't drink or appear nude in a photo?

    So to continue the story above into something real.

    When I was 20, the girl I was with at the time was 25. We were playing around at a party and some friends snapped a few incriminating photos. Again, being 20 -- I'm a minor and she's an adult. Does this mean that I'm being sexually exploited and that she (who posesses a few copies of these photos) and our friends (who also posess them) are sick pedophiles?

    I'm not arguing with anything else here, although I think we have to draw the line of criminalization while the act being criminalized is still a crime and not (although potentially detestible) speech. I'm just curious of the wording they used in this.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • #include

    I'd like to create a parallel-world where the law said that CGI images do not meet the legal definition of kiddie porn.

    In this hypothetical world, a citizen has just been arrested for having lots of sexually-oriented pictures of very young children (obviously under-18) on said citizen's computer.

    The legal defense: All the pictures are CGI images. No real underage children were used in the creation of these images.

    Under the common-law system in use in most of the United States, the burden of proof now falls on the prosecution to prove that the images are NOT CGI.

    It's pretty easy to show that an image is a CGI, but how do you prove that something is not one? Especially something which is not a dead-tree image but a jpeg?

    Would this make it difficult (if not impossible) to prosecute child pornography at the current state of the art in CGI?

    j.
  • I got the statistic from watching the o'rielly factor :) ... its for all child abuse though not just sexual abuse ...

    I don't know if pedophelia is any more of a mental disorder then homosexuality or tupperware fettishes ... just look what richard geere will do with a gerbil we just choose to criminalize some fetishes and not others ..

    but we're abstracting the issue here -- I ain't gonna argue that its good to be abusing children ... I believe that most of whats wrong with this country comes from the shitty way people treat their kids.

    my beef is making ceartin strings of 1's and 0's illegal

  • As detestible as the gross sexualizing of minors is (and I have to put Calvin Klein and most of the known world of commercial media along with the sweaty middle-aged perverts living their mom's basements whacking off to twelve-year-olds in with that) -- if the litmus test for being a child molestor is viewing child pornography, then why isn't the litmus test for being a terrorist owning a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook? Why don't we prosecute Unix admins for being crackers or people buying rope at the hardware store for potentially hiding strangled bodies under their house?

    Inventing a crime to get around the fact that finding those who are really committing the true crime is a lousy attempt at cirumventing a person's rights. The burden of proof seems to be higher for drug posession than it does raping a child.

    And one more quasi-gripe here -- why is it that we don't go after relatives of molested children the way we go after strangers and non-familiar molestors? If you have some photos of naked children, you're thrown in prison. If a teacher molests a student, they're thrown in prison. If a father molests his child, he and the family are sent to counseling. We attack constitutional liberties under the disguise of 'protecting the children', yet we so rarely handle the REAL first-hand front-line problems. It's difficult to take the justification of 'saving the children' for some of these issues, when they are so secular and half-assed.

    Maybe we should start making exampleof people like Michael kennedy. A full grown man having an affair with (aka raping) his fourteen-year-old babysitter -- instead of just slapping him on the wrist (did he even get that?). Maybe if he had nude photos of the girl he was raping, he'd have been treated more harshely. After all, compared to rape and child molestation, photos are a real crime.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • Likewise, 25 year old's are not the same as 25 year old's 15 years ago. An adult can just as easily take advantage of a child now as 20 years ago.
    ---
    seumas.com
  • This type of issue is difficult for me to settle on, too. On one hand, nobody thinks child pornography is a good thing but on the other, I'm reminded that other issues are entwined here. Issues such as prosecuting someone for what amounts to nothing more than circumstancial evidence. I'd hate to see something similar applied to other areas, where perhaps having a trunk or glove compartment in your car is justifiable cause for assuming you're hiding something. But this is even worse than that -- the circumstancial evidence becomes the crime above and beyond the crime the circumstancial evidence might point to.

    Sometimes I think we have to stop and think for a minute instead of assuming that because something is disgusting and wrong any methods of preventing it are justified. This will only give precedence to bleed over into other areas of law.
    ---
    seumas.com

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember the good old days, when CPU was singular?

Close