Japan Moves Toward Blocking Online Child Porn 374
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."
They listen only when they want to? (Score:2, Insightful)
If only they listened to the world about whaling too.
Re:They listen only when they want to? (Score:4, Funny)
no one wants to see whale porn so there's probably no market for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule 34 probably has something to do with it
Re:They listen only when they want to? (Score:5, Funny)
WARNING!
Not suitable for work.
Not suitable for home either.
Not suitable for anywhere, really.
[link removed]
Octopus porn? (Score:2)
You're right, Japanese seem to prefer octopus porn [google.com]
Re:They listen only when they want to? (Score:4, Funny)
speak for yourself, I go to the aquarium every day for that
You like to shave the whales, I see.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They dropped the bomb.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They're endangered.
Yes, many are, though not all of the whale species.
And they're smarter than you are.
Now that requires some serious references, please. Unless you were flamebaiting, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> > And they're smarter than you are.
>
> > Now that requires some serious references, please. Unless you were flamebaiting, of course.
>Actually, according to David Brin (of the 2 Uplift Trilogies), whales and dolphins are only about as smart as dogs. Although how >they got a blue or sperm whale to sit down and take an IQ test is beyond me.
Well dogs, especially house dogs are very intelligent much moreso than wolves - a consequence of the mental stimulation inherent in living with humans.
Re:They listen only when they want to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's kill both sides and feed them to the whales.
Age of consent in Japan (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Age of consent in Japan (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they had stronger militaries then they wouldn't get told what to do by the US. The US would suggest things instead.
Like the US and Russia, if Iran had invaded Kuwait like Russia invaded Georgia do you think the US would have sat on the sidelines?
Or China and Vietnam, if Vietnam had honked off Japan the way they did China in 1979 the US would have had planes across the border in minutes to bomb Vietnam.
Re:Age of consent in Japan (Score:5, Funny)
Japan tried this once. They failed.
Re:Age of consent in Japan (Score:4, Funny)
The US tech tree was more robust as the game went on than the Japanese.
Re:Age of consent in Japan (Score:5, Funny)
NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You realize that the US had driven the Japanese all the way back to their home islands before dropping the Bomb, right? They were doomed to lose by then regardless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt. By the time the a-bombs were dropped Japan was already retreating. Tokyo was firebombed (which was worse than the nuke).
A-Bomb or not, the end would have not changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the should yell at their government for signing treaties. BTW it's a two way street.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>A lot of 30-something Japanese girls still look like teenagers... and behave accordingly
You can say the same about a great many 30-something Western girls, especially the second part. I think it's WORSE to keep acting (and dressing) like a teenager when you DON'T have the looks for it anymore.
The boy who cried "child porn" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Age of consent in Japan (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Age of consent in Japan (Score:5, Insightful)
Pornography and Sex are not the same thing.
Would you describe a 17 year old fucking her older boyfriend in a country where this is fully legal as child sex? And if not, how can it be child pornography? The meaning of "child" is in question here, not the difference between sex and pornography.
Cencorship, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Why should the GP back up an argument he/she never made?
Note: "preventing spread of CP" != "protecting actual victims"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Cencorship, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Outlawing possession is naive and pointless. (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Outlawing possession is naive and pointless. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Outlawing possession is naive and pointless. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Distribution not possession.. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Outlawing possession is naive and pointless. (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn [wikileaks.org]
Yes, obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
the rest of the world should conform to japan. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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...)?
It's already too late. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
--
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:I was curious... (Score:5, Funny)
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:I was curious... (Score:5, Insightful)
And somehow teenagers across the world search out pictures of all the things you listed just to see what they're all about. Hell, there were a few kids in my old hometown who got arrested for possession of child pornography after they had a sort of "competition" to see which of them could find the most disgusting thing online, luckily for them it was obvious that this wasn't a gang of "teenage child rapists" or anything of the sort but rather just a few kids who were trying to gross each other out and ended up overstepping that invisible line in the sand (Murder videos? Ok. Videos of sex with animals? Perfectly legal. Various people hurting themselves in horrible ways? Sure, why not. Naked children? CUFF 'EM BOYS!)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like you answered your own question.
Anyways, just to be sure: curious means just what it means. Curious as in, does it really exist on the internet. Curious as in, is it really just a couple clicks away.
However, implicit in your post is the assumption that acting on the curiosity of cp, as opposed to acting on, say, the curiosity of the other subjects you listed, indicates a distinct psychological flaw.
I disagree, and in fact believe the opposite: that a near or total suppression of curiosity indicate
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are naturally curious. About everything. Even things they think won't interest them. They try drugs, sometimes just to see what it's *really* like, not because they think they'll enjoy them. Some people try pricking their fingers with pins, just to see if it hurts as much as they're told it does / doesn't. Some are curious what it feels like to drive 100mph down the highway, just once, even though they know they'll never want to try again. I'm not surprised someone would want to find out for themselv
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought. There's plenty of ways to delete something, especially if you prepare for it - and if you're looking for CP, you better prepare yourself.
If the person doesn't want to save the files, using a Live CD is the easiest way. Everything is in RAM, there's no "trail" left (except in the ISP, possibly, but that's another matter - I'd use Freenet, personally).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HAVE YOU ALL FUCKING LOST IT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I just don't like to watch people tell me that child pornography is a victimless crime. Maybe I don't like that Slashdot has so suddenely entrenched itself with ADVOCATES of child pornography
Wait... so you want to physically harm people just for making a simple argument on a text-based web site? That's pretty fucked up. You should seek counseling.
And also: I assume since you're sooo anti-child porn that you also support prosecuting teenagers who possess and distribute pictures of themselves. Because it's black and white right? Right and wrong? And child pornography, as everyone has told you... err I mean as everyone knows, is horrible terrible stuff. So we should lock those teens away for victimizing themselves. Right? Right?!?
Re:HAVE YOU ALL FUCKING LOST IT? (Score:4, Insightful)
And yes, your desire to break bones and report to the FBI anyone that dares even discuss whether child porn laws are appropriate speaks volumes about your common sense.
Re:HAVE YOU ALL FUCKING LOST IT? (Score:4, Interesting)
But again, you're avoiding the question. Do you think a 16 year old taking a sexual picture of themselves should be illegal or not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You were implicitly referring to people in this thread who were saying the possession of those images should be legal. Whether they like the pictures or not is irrelevant.
Good on em. (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
A giant robot taskforce has also been assembled to combat tentacles of, ahem, varying natures. Hooray!
A few years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
WWhat took them so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:WWhat took them so long? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
animated child porn (Score:2)
Just a note,
I believe that Japan allows animated/drawn "child" porn.
So this would not be effecting any of that type.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is true, but it may not last long. There are plans to vote on whether to outlaw it or not: http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=491446 [kyodo.co.jp]
A sad day (Score:4, Funny)
Due process; always due process (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Show us the evidence or shut up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kiddie porn pictures are not a substitute for "the real thing". If anything, there is considerable evidence that kiddie porn pictures incent the possessor to go and get the real thing.
Also, in most cases these pictures are sold, not given away freely. If there is a demand and a marketplace there will be folks that will supply it. All you need is a camera and a child or two. And children are pretty easy to get. If a child isn't interested in cooperating, they will be after a few slaps.
Just having such a marketplace is incredibly destructive to children. If it was all about just passing pictures around for free and children freely taking them for people's enjoyment that would be a completely different matter.
So you believe it's a statistic fact beyond the margin of error that people do what they watch on TV? People watch horror movies because they secretly want to kill people? People watch gross videos on the internet because they secretly want to do it? This is basically saying that anything a person thinks about for a long enough time, they will be compelled to do it.
This is not true. I'm sure the majority of us have thought about killing people but how many of us are actually murderers? Less than 1% probably. How many individuals who look at child porn or who have been convicted of possession of child pornography are violent enough to actually go molest a child?
The majority of adult individuals know the difference between fantasy and reality. Fantasy is stuff people imagine doing because they'll never be able to do it. People enter fantasy worlds to escape from the mundane real world. Then you have sick monsters who hear voices and have to obey the voices in their head, or who are without conscience and empathy and can rape and torture a child without remorse.
Lets be realistic, the majority of human beings aren't that. And if the majority aren't crazy like that it makes no sense to create laws expecting people to act like that. Lets put it simple, if you saw someone murdered on tape you wouldn't go and murder somebody would you? Because you have a conscience right?
Re:Show us the evidence or shut up. (Score:4, Insightful)
It has been shown, in multiple studies, that pornography leads to sexual deviancy and inconsistent expectations of sex
All studies completed by family first and christian groups I'm sure. Do you realize that sex crimes in general have gone down in the last twenty years? Do you know what went up in the last twenty years? Pornography consumption, thanks to the internet. A lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, in most cases these pictures are sold, not given away freely.
I love how this argument is trotted out and then denied, depending on the context.
Ask why child porn possession is a bad thing? ----> It's a multi-billion dollar industry, the financial incentive causes more abuse of children
Ask why the exact opposite is argued in MPAA/RIAA situations -----> It's not really about money, it's about demand. The mere knowledge that there is demand causes more abuse of children
exactly as it should be (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Japanese Government's Position (Score:4, Funny)
Re:2chan (Score:4, Insightful)
Lies. I browse that site very often and you only find the lolicon on weekends in themed threads, and the CP is shunned like in other countries.
Even so the porn is relegated to three (four now) general boards, the rest being themed areas such as animal/insect photography, robots, mechanics, idols, general anime, 3D stuff, etc.
You are just trying to blow it out of proportion. Read the text on the boards too and you'd understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I don't vouch for any of this but I had no problem understanding the grandparent.
In the late 90s (what the original parent said) /early 00s (what the grandparent said) there was only 2chan, it was wild wild east and you could find all the stuff the original parent mentioned including child porn. Between then and now, child porn was cracked down on and moved to other 2chan-like sites. So when you go there now in 2010 and don't find child porn, that is perfectly logical and not in contradiction with the o
Re: (Score:2)
My sister's wife taught English in the rural areas of Nagasaki pref. in the late 90's and she relayed a story about being astonished when she discovered 2chan being browsed on the lab's computers. She tried to have the site blocked but the admin told her it was too popular. For those not in the know imagine 4chan but with even more lolicon, child porn and tentacle rape.
You linked to wikipedia for 2channel or 2ch.net, which is a text-only board so I doubt there's a whole lot of tentacle rape going on. 2Channel is a massive forum (wikipedia says possibly largest in world) and a legitimate internet site, ranked 190th for visits by alexa in world, 17th in Japan. Very unlikely it would ever be blocked. 2Chan.net or Futaba channel [wikipedia.org] on the other hand is a completely unrelated imageboard, still popular but not unblockably so (4505 world, 329JP).
Your mistake is akin to mistaking
Re: (Score:2)
Who decided you weren't being taken advantage of at 18? does something magical happen on the last night of your 17th year that renders you mature?
It's easy to say that a 6 year old is unable to consent and a 25 year old is able to. So we move in from those extremes and draw an arbitrary line somewhere at the higher end of the 'maybe' pile. Ultimately you've either got to pick a dividing line or hand discretionary power to police/prosecutors. I think both solutions have crapiness involved but the first IMHO is better. You can argue that the line is in the wrong place but that doesn't remove the problem where one day you're able to consent when you
Re: (Score:2)
When I started sophomore year of high school in Fairbanks, I stayed with one of my dad's coworkers who had German porn featuring 14 year old girls naked. Of course, being 13
Re: (Score:2)
does something magical happen on the last night of your 17th year that renders you mature?
No.
Instead the rest of society magically stops caring if you aren't mature.
Nobody thinks that every person over age 18 is mature enough to make good decisions about their body, and thus no 18+ person is being taken advantage of in the porn industry.
We just stop viewing that as a problem for anyone but the immature adult.
Different cultures view this issue differently, and you can feel free to argue that our culture has
Re: (Score:2)
"Another recent example is Australia banning small-breasted porn stars from XXX movies in Australia. The apparent reason (in not so many words) is people that find women with small breasts attractive are pedophiles!!!! Now, why aren't women right's groups all over this shitty law??"
Because it was the wittering of one loony (state-level) politician, and never made it into a bill, let alone state law.
Re:Define Child (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these are actually addressed in the letter of the law or certain rulings, at least, here in the United States.
Any pornography that includes someone under the age of 18 is illegal. This includes those pictures where baby is fully clothed and asleep in the same room in their crib while their parents take dirty pictures of their sexy time. So, pornography of someone 17 years and 364 days is child pornography. Note that there are additional penalties for possessing child pornography of someone especially young (like under ten), but that's up to the prosecutor. Believe me, they'll go for all they can get.
Images without known sources are generally shown to people specially trained in age recognition. There are, of course, false positives. Non-watermarked pictures from those websites that hire people that look young but are over 18 have gotten people tossed in jail before because the actors and actresses might have only been as developed as a young teenager for whatever reasons, and the experts identified them as children. Look at the recent fiasco involving a fan of Little Lupe. The FBI also has a database of known child pornography pictures that they can check against.
I don't know if it has changed, but pornography is anything designed to get someone sexually aroused. Suggestive poses, excessive display of the genitals, etc. That's why you can sometimes find photography books involving naked children that aren't illegal. However, all of this is subjective. Good luck arguing that those pictures you downloaded aren't pornography if there's even a hint of genital in the picture.
Trampling over people's rights is easy. As soon as someone speaks up in the defense of someone, simply accuse them of supporting child molestation and accuse them of being a pedophile. Hint that their public show of support might lead to an investigation and visit from social services to take their children away.