ROFLMAO - busted for using daddy's secure NSA laptop to download kiddie porn

[Tallpine]

I made no assumptions of what he was charged with.  Others have inferred that the federal kiddie porn charges tend to be less than realistic.
When the possession of a drawing of any act becomes illegal....we should really examine what we define freedom to be.

Just another word, for nothin' left to lose.

Nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

[Lee]

In the real world, most pedophiles abuse someone they know, even family, perhaps mainly family or extended family. And while I hate all Japanese anime, porn or not, it isn't worth sending someone to prison over.
In this case, they had two years of activity and illegal use of government property, so I'm not so sure that a few years with good behavior was such a bad thing.

[GigaBuist]

Ummmm - what's with letting your kid "borrow" your secure NSA laptop in the first place?  And daddy did not notice "a program used to remove activity or material" before turning in the laptop?

stay safe.

I would assume it was just a general purpose laptop with SELinux installed on it.  Not noticing something like 'srm' being installed would be reasonable.

But I'm grabbing at straws because journalists generally know nothing about the topics they write on.

[Balog]

So.

Because some dude like watching cartoons of little girls, which harms no one. We should lock him up...because he might, in the future, purely in your opinion, decide he wants the real thing?

Yep, I'm a horrible awful evil vile statist like that. I don't mind laws against public sex or animated child porn or beastiality. I'm basically a communist. I'm sure all the internet libertarian purists will now pelt me with fruit. If we can't defend pedophiles right to get off then we are truly not a free society.

'First they came for the pedophiles and I did nothing. Then they came for the zoophiles..."

 

In other news, the Libertarian Party is still widely regarded as the lunatic fringe. Internet libertarian purists remain baffled why, but are pretty sure it's just because of welfare queens and sheeple.

[Hawkmoon]

The most commonly used versions of "sleeper" holds restrict blood flow througth the neck, not airflow through the airways.

Correct.

[freakazoid]

Saying "I assume anyone arrested for child porn is probably just an innocent buttercup with lollycon hentai" is naive bordering on the ludicrous. If you get off on little kids it's highly unlikely you'll be satisfied with the ersatz versions for long.

Except it's not mostly creepy older dudes getting off to cartoon porn, especially when it comes to characters from actual cartoons, and they are not getting off to it because they are younger children being shown.

And while I hate all Japanese anime

What!? Some of it is pretty darn good. Ever watch Cowboy Beebop?

[lupinus]

Yep, I'm a horrible awful evil vile statist like that. I don't mind laws against public sex or animated child porn or beastiality. I'm basically a communist. I'm sure all the internet libertarian purists will now pelt me with fruit. If we can't defend pedophiles right to get off then we are truly not a free society.

'First they came for the pedophiles and I did nothing. Then they came for the zoophiles..."

 

In other news, the Libertarian Party is still widely regarded as the lunatic fringe. Internet libertarian purists remain baffled why, but are pretty sure it's just because of welfare queens and sheeple.

Except public sex subjects others to seeing the act in question. And bestiality at least hurts an animal. Whats animated child porn watching in a private abode hurt? The crayons that drew it?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

when liberty loving pervs start shipping it its no longerin their private abode

damn phone

[vaskidmark]

Historically, society has drawn a line between "art" and reality - even when it comes to porn.  And, with a few notable exceptions that seem to always draw objections, society has said that thoughts are not crimes.

Kiddie porn that involves real kiddies is, we all seem to agree, bad.  (Well, the non-NAMBLA folks do, at least.)  And I believe that we can stipulate that there is a fairly well established nexus between "make-believe" kiddie porn and real kiddie porn.  There is, based on the literature, not such a nexus between kiddie porn and child sexual abuse as we generally understand that term/crime - sexual acts with a child by someone in a caretaker role, as opposed to the sort of child rape prevalent in kiddie porn.  So it seems the debate here is whether we should be locking up folks who read kiddie-porn literature or view kiddie porn comics/cartoons on the basis that they might graduate from make-believe fictional representations of kiddie porn to real live kiddie porn with real live kiddies. 

Thought crime before the thought is even formed.  They "might" do it.  It's for the children!

On the same basis I guess we ought to arrest everybody who possesses a ___ because they might use it to hurt/kill someone else.  Or a little less out there - we ought to arrest all Little League coaches because they might molest a kid on the team.  Do not get me started about arresting priests to prevent the possibility of them doing something doubly (triplely ?) horrific with altar boys.  And all teachers, day care providers, and boyfriends of the kid's mother must go, too.

On the othrer hand, I do view those that "merely" purchase porn involving real kiddies to be accessories to crime in the same way that johns are accessories to the crime of prostitution and drug addicts are accessories to the crime of drug dealing.

I have about 16 years of experience working with both caretaker-role sexual abusers and folks who acted in kiddie porn.  While occassionally there is crossover (making a home movie of yourself with the 3-month old), my experience and training is that 1) the crossover when it involves sharing/selling the product is rare, and 2) most of those involved did not graduate from viewing/reading artistic (fictional) representations to commiting physical acts.  As a matter of fact, those deeply into the viewing/reading of fictional representations found the mere thought of actual physical sexual contact repugnant - through fiction they could keep it clean and "pure", not messy and smelly and icky.  Also, in the fictional representation the "partner" not only was willing but enjoyed it, as opposed to the expressed fear that the child might cry or bleed or, worst of all, vomit.

Folks involved in sex with children, be it imaginary or real, are very sick persons.  But their sicknesses generally are different based on imagining as opposed to actually doing.

stay safe.

[Balog]

Except public sex subjects others to seeing the act in question. And bestiality at least hurts an animal. Whats animated child porn watching in a private abode hurt? The crayons that drew it?

Necrophilia doesn't hurt anyone either, yet I'm totally okay with laws against it.

Yep, I'm basically just a big ole jackbooted thug. I don't know how I can live with the shame of oppressing all those poor pedophiles. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

Necrophilia doesn't hurt anyone either, yet I'm totally okay with laws against it.

Yep, I'm basically just a big ole jackbooted thug. I don't know how I can live with the shame of oppressing all those poor pedophiles. 

Wrong. Necrophila can hurt those who loved the deseased with the desicration of the body.

Only with the permission of the deseased, via legal documentation would I consider necrophila (legally) ok.

You are supporting something that criminalizes thought rather then action. Why do you care what someone thinks as long as they don't act on those thoughts that would hurt someone?

[Balog]

Wrong. Necrophila can hurt those who loved the deseased with the desicration of the body.

Only with the permission of the deseased, via legal documentation would I consider necrophila (legally) ok.

You are supporting something that criminalizes thought rather then action. Why do you care what someone thinks as long as they don't act on those thoughts that would hurt someone?

I just wanted to highlight this. You're saying that you have no issue with a law banning something because it might cause emotional harm to people not directly invovled in the action. And then you're saying that it's wrong of me to want laws against pedophilia even if it's only done via drawings etc.


Think about that for a sec and I bet you'll see why it's not what you might call consistent.

[freakazoid]

And then you're saying that it's wrong of me to want laws against pedophilia even if it's only done via drawings etc.

Who do the drawings hurt?

[BlueStarLizzard]

I just wanted to highlight this. You're saying that you have no issue with a law banning something because it might cause emotional harm to people not directly invovled in the action. And then you're saying that it's wrong of me to want laws against pedophilia even if it's only done via drawings etc.


Think about that for a sec and I bet you'll see why it's not what you might call consistent.

Ummm... You have an emotional connection to Bart Simpson on par with your emotional connection to a passed on loved one?

Really?

[Balog]

Ummm... You have an emotional connection to Bart Simpson on par with your emotional connection to a passed on loved one?

Really?

That's missing the mark by rather a lot. Shocking. I'm merely pointing out that in your world, "might cause someone negative emotions" is a valid reason to legislate in some cases but apparently not others.


Also, ya'll seem to be missing the distinction between "zomg I want to pass some new laws and ban the things" and "I have no issues with the laws as currently written."

[lupinus]

That's missing the mark by rather a lot. Shocking. I'm merely pointing out that in your world, "might cause someone negative emotions" is a valid reason to legislate in some cases but apparently not others.


Also, ya'll seem to be missing the distinction between "zomg I want to pass some new laws and ban the things" and "I have no issues with the laws as currently written."

So call the corpse the property of the next of kin and forget about the general emotion from it.

The fact still remains that a cartoon or simulation isn't hurting anyone. Sick and offensive? Sure. So is rape and plenty of other genres of pornography. Harmful, to the point they should be illegal? Hardly.

[Balog]

Meh. I disagree. All law is just codified morality, harm is not just violation of the NAP, and I don't object to oppressing the poor poor widdle pedophiles. What gets amusing is all the Rev Neimoller'ing from the hardline libertarian purists.

[Ned Hamford]

the poor poor widdle pedophiles.

This class of people... Just how extensively would you define them?  The Sex Offender registry includes folks for 'public' urination when it has happened very much privately but on public property ect ect.

I'm not libertarian enough to argue the margins; but that is ok as government enforcement is nowhere near them.  Previous prosecutions have including assigned by therapist poems and stories concerning personal experiences of being raped as a child*, cartoons, satire, adults that look young,ect, as 'child pornography'.  Are there legitimate cases? Of course.  But when facts are lacking, I'm past the point of blind trust.   

When looking at the little dots on that sex offender map, I'm definitely wondering if it was peeing in 'public,' an exhibitionist, ex-spouse custody accusation, cheap gov. tests**, or actual rapist.  And for actual rapists, were their victims ones of opportunity (babysitting a cousin ect) or full on kidnapping and violent rape situations.   I suspect that the fear and uncertainty may be the point; larger budgets and more enforcement leeway based on the fears.


*As I recall, that case had the author making her stories available to members that paid for access (something like 5 dollars, 7 members).  Her stories included speculative point of view of her rapists; both in her own rape and the imagined rape of others.  So, full context does murk up this example; but this was a full prosecution till painful plea bargain case, not a charged and immediately dropped on conditions situation. 

** Again, reliance on memory, but there was a rash of prosecutions hospitals reported gonorrhea infected children; it actually being regular childhood infections, but a cheaper test being used that gave an inordinate number of false positives.  With STD 'proof' prosecutors kept charging parents and other children adjacent suspects and getting convictions based on accusation and fear mongering.  Off Topic, but numerous more solid examples of 'accusation being enough' instances of lives being ruined jump to mind.   

[Balog]

Addressing bad cases (public urination etc) is a strawman. No one is defending that. The only issue we've been discussing is whether or not producing child porn via animation or other formats that do not involve direct harm to children in the production etc should be legislated against. All that other crap you're referring to isn't relevant, it's just dragging in stuff we all agree is wrong to try to muddy the waters.

[freakazoid]

Addressing bad cases (public urination etc) is a strawman. No one is defending that. The only issue we've been discussing is whether or not producing child porn via animation or other formats that do not involve direct harm to children in the production etc should be legislated against. All that other crap you're referring to isn't relevant, it's just dragging in stuff we all agree is wrong to try to muddy the waters.

I thought we were talking about moral issues and protecting children?

I believe he makes a good point on bringing that stuff up. Simply saying public urination wasn't the only thing he said. You are painting people with a big brush by calling them pedophiles, even though no actual child is involved. He countered that.

It's not only not direct harm, there is no harm at all, to any child, anywhere.

[Balog]

People who are sexually aroused by images of children (even if those images are computer generated) are pedophiles. That's not a broad brush, that's accurate. Are you saying that people who are sexually attracted to children aren't pedophiles unless they assault a child or? I don't grok your point here.

And 1. I dispute the claim that pedophilic porn being legal as long as it was not made with children would do no harm to actual children 2. even if it could be proved beyond dispute that such was the case, I still wouldn't have an issue with outlawing pedophilic images 3. none of which has anything to do with Ned's strawmen. Ned didn't counter anything I said, he brought up a bunch of issues with implementation. Kind of like if I said "The US Constitution is the best governmental contract ever written" and Ned started talking about how people don't follow the Constitution.

[Ned Hamford]

People who are sexually aroused by images of children (even if those images are computer generated) are pedophiles.

Ok, we are moving a bit forward now.  Please further define images of children.  I trust we are now excluding poems and fiction?

Images of children, does this include the Simpsons children?  Stick figures?  If focusing on folks with any likelihood of harming the flesh and blood children, platonic ideals of innocence may actually be appropriate to exclude. 

So if we are going for somewhat realistic depictions of children, does this include looks like but aren't actually?  Not my cup of tea, but I know Japan is big on child shaped androids, daemons, body swap, dream sequence.  And what is the age mark for children?  I saw a music video not too long ago that was a cartoon of HS aged children who snuck into the school swimming pool, started making out quite graphically, and then turned into Cthulhu type horrors.  Where is your line that differentiates legitimate art?  If it is resting on the viewer and not the material itself, I don't think I could trust the government given their history. 

As long as there aren't any flesh and blood children I would err on the side of freedom.  I would also make a distinction between passive consumers (not paying and not passing along) and those who are active.  If there are some pedophiles that acknowledges their illness and monk it up; good on them.  Much like someone who really wants to rape women.  To me, despite the urges, you aren't a rapist till you actually take a step in that direction.  But hey, thought crimes, some people like the idea.  Christian thought puts the sin at the notion, and I do like moral judgement, but I like having my actual legalities at least one step removed. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

People who are sexually aroused by images of children (even if those images are computer generated) are pedophiles. That's not a broad brush, that's accurate. Are you saying that people who are sexually attracted to children aren't pedophiles unless they assault a child or? I don't grok your point here.

And 1. I dispute the claim that pedophilic porn being legal as long as it was not made with children would do no harm to actual children 2. even if it could be proved beyond dispute that such was the case, I still wouldn't have an issue with outlawing pedophilic images 3. none of which has anything to do with Ned's strawmen. Ned didn't counter anything I said, he brought up a bunch of issues with implementation. Kind of like if I said "The US Constitution is the best governmental contract ever written" and Ned started talking about how people don't follow the Constitution.

You'd be right about it not being legal. Guy i know pulled 2 years . Freakyy thing is he had a kid while locked up. G
No sleepovers at their house when she gets older


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Balog]

I cannot roll my eyes enough at this. I may have actually strained whatever muscles control that function. No Ned, I am not going to give you explicit definitions of child pornography. And if your standard for "should a thing be illegal" is "the .gov does a good job at enforcing that law" then you're just arguing for legalizing literally everything because (as you so deftly point out) the judicial apparatus is hopelessly broken. Since it's rather unlikely that pedophilia will be decriminalzied anytime soon I think I'm done wasting my time arguing with you about it.

I will however note your blatant dishonesty in continuing to call creation and possession of a class of object "thought crime." That's some MSNBC levels of disingenuity right there.

[Ned Hamford]

No Ned, I am not going to give you explicit definitions of child pornography...
I will however note your blatant dishonesty in continuing to call creation and possession of a class of object "thought crime." That's some MSNBC levels of disingenuity right there.

If you place the onus on the class of person rather than the material itself, then yah... it is a thought crime. 

I am sorry if you've gotten riled up, but I do think I have been consistent in my assertions, one of which is that there should be a clear legal demarcation between creation/distribution/support/ect of materials and passive consumption.  I am not trying to confuse the issue.  I just want the complexities to be clear by use of parallel examples. 

We have crummy laws and the answer isn't to throw them out; it is to make them better.  Child should mean child; not an adult, not a cartoon, not a poem.  While I do feel passionate about the grand tapestry that should be our system of laws, I am more concerned that we are squandering resources on creepy loaners with sexualized Lisa Simpson fan sites rather than actual child sexual slavery rings.  For the Children! 

I largely feel the same way about marijuana crackdowns when there is a major problem with heroin flooding the area.  I'm not saying make pot legal; but I do think a big chunk of government enjoys the theater.  Rather than the risk of taking on scary drug cartels, you can just make a show of sticking it to idiot college kids who are otherwise law abiding.