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

[Balog]

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

Well, it's good that no one here but you is doing that then. 

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.

First, attempting to dismiss your opponent by claiming they're just being emotional is a fairly pathetic debate tactic. Second, support of X and consumption of X are somehow distinct in your mind. Interesting. I guess all the folks who visit free porn sites and watch sports on tv are in no way contributing to it since they're just passive consumers.   

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!

If you want to argue that cops suck and enforce the laws badly I have no issue with that, but "this law is enforced badly" and "this law should not exist" are not the same thing. 

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. 

Except, in this case, you are argue that we should make it legal.

[Ned Hamford]

First, attempting to dismiss your opponent by claiming they're just being emotional is a fairly pathetic debate tactic.

I cannot roll my eyes enough at this. I may have actually strained whatever muscles control that function... 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 insist that the crime isn't dependent on the object, but rather the mental status of the perpetrator, please explain to me the distinction. 

Its my understanding that for debate, positions need be taken.  I've just been trying to figure out yours.  As far as I can tell its: Screw those guys. 'Which guys?' Screw you too!

For cries of scare crow, I keep seeing arguments attributed to me that I don't recall making.  Bad law? Yup.  Should be no law? Absurd.  I want the serious federal felony broken into distinct crimes.  The continuum making sense in terms of their severity.  Right now 'passive,' if someone stuck an embedded image of child pornography here, suddenly we are all felons.  The current federal law makes no distinction concerning motive or quantity.  The page loads up and the image is saved in your temporary internet files folder; you possess it and can do ten years.  Deleting it is actually another crime.  And the definition of child pornography can be adults, cartoons, the written word, or what we would call actual child pornography.  Some sanity can be easily had by some simple changes. 

I don't believe folks should be able to accidentally commit felonies; outside of depraved heart type situations.  Since in the real world pedophiles have gigabyte collections; put the passive possession crime with an element that requires a pattern of behavior.  Problem solved; over reach risk of rogue prosecutors averted.  Increased penalties for support, increased penalties for distribution, whole new crime category for creation.

I would trust the DOJ team I worked with 4 summers ago and 7/9 of the local prosecutors.  But breaking the law up would make for an increase of justice all around.  Then we could debate the low end of the spectrum as the low end.  Ten years for cartoons from a free site wholly legal on the other side of the country and ten years for paid entry to a child porn ring and sharing your own collection with same..... I see a clear distinction and really hope you do as well.  I'd keep clear depictions of children and how to child rape manuals very illegal (the term is 'grooming,' and that such how to manuals are out there makes me quite sick to my stomach).  Clear fantasy cartoons? It frankly amuses me to picture a 60 year old federal judge guessing at an elf girl's age or parsing an inclusion of a robot with 6 sets of interchangeable sex features; I'd just keep it as moral taboo.  I don't understand tentacles, but am somewhat confident its distinct from pedophilia. 

For the free porn site/football adds concern... Just how much traffic do you think kiddy porn sites are getting?  I hope its low enough for visitor click revenue to be marginal.  I honestly don't know tho.  Give how illegal it is, I would think it exists behind member only pay walls; when 'open access' at all and not from secret clubs with their own rings and handshakes.  I do know, from readings on past prosecutions, there existed pedophile file sharing clubs and vacation groups.  Distribution and clear support; with child rape and support of same clearly evident.  My concern is accidental felons and spectrum of guilt/appropriate punishment.  The really bad guys are out there and should be focused on; not creepy idiot teenagers.  Tho again, no details given in the OP case, so he very well could be a hardcore offender nipped in the bud.  Real child porn and a how to manual... yah, no problem except maybe punishment spectrum.  Rape/exploitation should have more years than picture viewing.  How many more? I dunno, but having looked at pictures of a rape/exploitation getting more years than the base act looks reversed to me. 

An adjacent area of concern is the government's creation of civil penalties for sex offenders:  Jail term completed, but reporting and living restrictions based on that sex offender class membership.  Non-surprise, suddenly lots of criminal charges for failure to report or other violations.  Assuming it was a fair original conviction, I'm still somewhat torn on the topic.  The slippery slope is certainly a scary one.  Why not violent criminals? The recidivism is certainly significant there too.  But yah... pedophiles...  they are a class of their own.  There is plenty of good motivation in keeping the legal class of pedophiles as actual pedophiles... just for greater moral clarity in coming down hard on that class in the first place. 

[freakazoid]

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.

I saw that recently too at the HP Lovecraft Film Festival lol. It was... interesting. I liked the ending though.

I guess while we are making watching "child" pornography illegal, we should also make watching movies where bad people do bad things also illegal.

and vacation groups

What?

[Ned Hamford]

I'm not sure if it was To Catch a Predator mixing it up or some spin off, but main stream media has covered the sex trade tourism of Thailand.  Comparatively wealthy first world tourists exploiting the kind of abject poverty that has pre-pubescent children being pimped directly by their own families.  And mere rape are the 'good' customers.  The show had hidden camera conversations with a middle america dentist who bragged about traveling there every year; where to get the best deals, and how he was a great guy for leaving a tip and not purposely maiming anyone.  I don't recall anything beyond middle america dentist, but I'm sure his life was good and ruined.  I think there were some actual law changes thanks to the show (60 minutes?); previously there could be no prosecution because he wasn't on American soil and I think now we have some federal law saying anything illegal in another country can be prosecuted in the US.  I do wonder how that area of law has panned out...

As often as I say it; glad I'm here and not somewhere else.  While I'm sure it would fade away quickly enough if some chaos came, our day to day puts great value on every human life.  Seeing/hearing about cultures where the lack of value is taken for granted is disturbing.  I wonder what some foreigners would think of movies like The Purge or Texas Chainsaw Massacre; ahh yes, Tuesdays.

[Balog]

If you insist that the crime isn't dependent on the object, but rather the mental status of the perpetrator, please explain to me the distinction. 

Its my understanding that for debate, positions need be taken.  I've just been trying to figure out yours.  As far as I can tell its: Screw those guys. 'Which guys?' Screw you too!

My position is pretty consistent. I don't have a moral objection to laws that criminalize possession of pornography involving children (even in cases where the children are animated or otherwise not real people hurt in the production), and I don't want those laws written or enforced in stupid ways. You keep listing ways that the laws are written or enforced badly, and using that as an argument on why having such a law in the first place is wrong. Those are two distinct points, and you insist on conflating them.

[Ned Hamford]

My position is pretty consistent. I don't have a moral objection to laws that criminalize possession of pornography involving children (even in cases where the children are animated or otherwise not real people hurt in the production), and I don't want those laws written or enforced in stupid ways. You keep listing ways that the laws are written or enforced badly, and using that as an argument on why having such a law in the first place is wrong. Those are two distinct points, and you insist on conflating them.

Would you separate the charge of possessing child pornography into distinct categories; or keep the blanket classification? 

I see a huge distinction, especially when the allegation is violent child pornography, where its an animated teenage girl and a tentacle and when its a prepubescent, flesh and blood, child being raped.  The first actually has special showing rooms at anime cons as historic cultural development of Japanese imports; but technically fits the child pornography classification and has been used in individual prosecutions.  Heck, even Sailor Moon (very popular Japanese animation import featuring magical teenage evil fighting girls) has nude scenes in the original production.  The second, I just keep with the scale of appropriate punishment and enforcement.  Having it would be bad enough, but propagating seems far worse to me.  And further along that spectrum materially supporting- 1 step removed from aiding and abetting. 

The bad law/bad enforcement distinction is kind of a chicken and the egg situation.  There is plenty of material out there about how our criminal legal system is a one way ratchet upward.  No one wants to appear weak on crime, even if the results are absurd. 

I also do wonder if you keep the same mindset of economic participation in the child porn arena as elsewhere.  The federal argument for economic participation, and thus regulation eligibility, is broad enough as to be effectively all encompassing.  Combine that with no *actual definitions... someone somewhere found those stick figures provocative and the sociopath prosecutor and rubber stamping judge get to have a field day with someone's life.   

*More classic gov. expansion logic, anything that can be, is. 

[Pharmacology]

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.

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

I just finished watching Attack on Titan. Pretty deng good. First time I'd watched an anime in well over ten years.

Kept calling it Japanimation to piss off my nerd friends.  LOL

[roo_ster]

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.

Careful, now, you are intruding a huge zone of Doublethink and folk will not appreciate having their cognitive dissonance thrown in their face.

First, my answer to your question:
Only those who have sex(1) with children are pedophiles.  I can not know their thoughts & attractions and, as a human, can only judge folk by their actions(2).  This is generally consistent with the notion that "Only folk who do X are X."  And the Randian /classical "A is A" law of identity.

My answer regarding pedophiles is also the answer of the libertine crowd...regarding pedophiles.  OTOH, the libertine crowd will vociferously argue that in cases of sexual identity (other than pedophilia) that what counts is the attraction, thought, or personal belief.  IOW, pedophiles are pedophiles because they have sex with children, but homosexuals are homosexual because they are/say they are attracted to their own sex.  And ne'er the twain shall mix, because homophobia.  And science.

[You may recall the debate I had with another APS poster on this, where he claimed he was bisexual / homosexual despite never actually having sex with men.  My position is that this is the height of unreality.  For example, some fellow who never even enlisted in the Navy claims be is a SEAL because he feels he is a SEAL is an object of derision.]

As for fictional depictions of pedophilia or pederasty, I am loath to outlaw it as the production of such has not harmed anyone (other than the producer).  But I do not lose any sleep over its current state of illegality.  This is not a Niemöller moment. 

By Martin "Freak Boy" Niemöller
    First they came for the pedophiles,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pedophile.

    Then they came for the zoophiles,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a zoophile.

    Then they came for the necrophiles,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a necrophile.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.
    [Because Freak Boy is a furry,
    and everyone was too busy laughing and pointing.]

(1) Or make an effort to do so.

(2) Actions such as obtaining & viewing fictional kiddie porn is indicative, but not conclusive.  Certainly clue enough to keep an eye on them.

[Pharmacology]

STOP MAKING ME AGREE WITH YOUR POST ROOSTER, IT FEELS WEIRD.