Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: vaskidmark on October 17, 2013, 10:01:34 AM
-
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Child-porn-on-NSA-computer-nets-five-years-in-4895141.php
A former Smithson Valley High honor student who could have gone to elite colleges is instead headed to prison for five years for possessing violent child pornography he downloaded on his father's National Security Agency laptop and a home computer.
Calling the downloaded material “stomach-turning,” Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery imposed the sentence Friday on Christopher Thomas Cardella, despite calls for a lower term, even probation, by his lawyer, Van Hilley.
Cardella, 22, faced up to 10 years in prison, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Thompson told the judge prosecutors wanted prison time for Cardella because he had been looking at child porn for two years before he was caught.
On Aug. 11 2009, a month after Cardella's 18th birthday, the FBI showed up at his parents' home to investigate findings that someone had been downloading child pornography.
Before that, Cardella's father had turned in his work laptop, and a review of its contents found a program used to remove activity or material, according to FBI special agent Jeff Allovio.
“This was a violation of (government) policy,” Allovio testified.
It also raised a red flag, resulting in a probe to see if someone was “selling secrets to the spies,” he said.
Hilley said later that the father was cleared of wrongdoing.
The investigation found Cardella's father had let Cardella use the laptop, and he tried to remove child porn he had downloaded, though Allovio said some was still found during a forensic examination. Plenty more was found on a computer Cardella built or customized himself at home.
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? :facepalm:
stay safe.
-
"Hilley said later that the father was cleared of wrongdoing."
Letting the kid use the damned laptop could very well be a crime in and of itself.
-
"Hilley said later that the father was cleared of wrongdoing."
Letting the kid use the damned laptop could very well be a crime in and of itself.
It is.
The only situation i can see where he wouldn't have been guilty of a crime would be if he had no knowledge of it.
-
It is.
The only situation i can see where he wouldn't have been guilty of a crime would be if he had no knowledge of it.
What is the protocol of having a secure laptop at your home?
-
What is the protocol of having a secure laptop at your home?
I don't think that word means what you think it means =D
-
What is the protocol of having a secure laptop at your home?
That would depend on what the definition of "secure" is in this case, which may only be a media definition. Generally, and especially in agencies like the NSA (I assume), even an "unsecure" laptop would require a physical token, like a CAC, for access, so he would have had to give his son the token, plus the token passphrase, as well as the laptop for access. Everything the son did would then have been recorded under the dad's account.
-
That would depend on what the definition of "secure" is in this case, which may only be a media definition. Generally, and especially in agencies like the NSA (I assume), even an "unsecure" laptop would require a physical token, like a CAC, for access, so he would have had to give his son the token, plus the token passphrase, as well as the laptop for access. Everything the son did would then have been recorded under the dad's account.
Yeah, my company laptop requires encryption and windows user password, plus there is no internet connection until you get onto the VPN (with RSA).
-
Color me skeptical of any federal child pornography charges. Much like assault weapon charges, their 'definitions' are pretty far from the laypersons. I've got it tucked away somewhere; a gov position paper on charging assault weapon possession for a shoelace. For child porn, gov. definition includes cartoons/drawings, the written word, and adults mimicking/acting underage. And also the libertarian stance, 10 years for no actual harm. Even if sought out, the base harm was wholly unrelated to him. Unless he paid for access or otherwise abetted it in someway, the punishment for the crime is way out proportion. Aggravation for the icky is both a slippery slope and a bane for punishment consistency. Favorite current example in NY, it is a felony to obstruct an airway; so while the sleeper hold is a lawful restraint and compliance method for the police, its more lawful for you or I to beat someone unconscious. Intention of that law was against a particular form of spousal abuse, but that certainly isn't how its been enforced.
-
And also the libertarian stance, 10 years for no actual harm.
1. AFAIK it is not in fact the libertarian stance that child porn is a victimless crime.
2. If it was, that just means the libertarians are wrong.
-
Color me skeptical of any federal child pornography charges. Much like assault weapon charges, their 'definitions' are pretty far from the laypersons. I've got it tucked away somewhere; a gov position paper on charging assault weapon possession for a shoelace. For child porn, gov. definition includes cartoons/drawings, the written word, and adults mimicking/acting underage. And also the libertarian stance, 10 years for no actual harm. Even if sought out, the base harm was wholly unrelated to him. Unless he paid for access or otherwise abetted it in someway, the punishment for the crime is way out proportion. Aggravation for the icky is both a slippery slope and a bane for punishment consistency. Favorite current example in NY, it is a felony to obstruct an airway; so while the sleeper hold is a lawful restraint and compliance method for the police, its more lawful for you or I to beat someone unconscious. Intention of that law was against a particular form of spousal abuse, but that certainly isn't how its been enforced.
Could you share, in a general way, your experience with child porn cases at the federal level? And particularly violent child porn cases.
Knew one of those guys once. Was "interesting"
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
. . . Favorite current example in NY, it is a felony to obstruct an airway; so while the sleeper hold is a lawful restraint and compliance method for the police, its more lawful for you or I to beat someone unconscious. Intention of that law was against a particular form of spousal abuse, but that certainly isn't how its been enforced.
The most commonly used versions of "sleeper" holds restrict blood flow througth the neck, not airflow through the airways.
-
Could you share Ned , again based on experience, where a sleeper hold or choke hold is still allowable by the cops? They banned em here
http://www.plg-pllc.com/illegal-chokehold-practice-area-page/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
That would depend on what the definition of "secure" is in this case, which may only be a media definition. Generally, and especially in agencies like the NSA (I assume), even an "unsecure" laptop would require a physical token, like a CAC, for access, so he would have had to give his son the token, plus the token passphrase, as well as the laptop for access. Everything the son did would then have been recorded under the dad's account.
This
If it's a classified laptop, it shouldn't leave a secret or above facility. If it does, there are controls that must be in place, courier orders, etc.
If it's an "unclassified" machine, it's just a work computer. However there are still controls in place. For us it's token authentication, full disk encryption with a strong passcode, etc
-
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Child-porn-on-NSA-computer-nets-five-years-in-4895141.php
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? :facepalm:
stay safe.
The sentence is ambiguous, as to whether it was NSA-guy or his kid that ran the scourer.
And I'm surprised NSA didn't have it locked down every which way. Encrypted hard disk, fingerprint scan required for login, whatever the heck else is out there.
-
The sentence is ambiguous, as to whether it was NSA-guy or his kid that ran the scourer.
And I'm surprised NSA didn't have it locked down every which way. Encrypted hard disk, fingerprint scan required for login, whatever the heck else is out there.
As Fitz pointed out, it should have had full disk encryption - I don't know of any gov laptops that are not required to have that anymore. This is really sounding like it was just a standard assigned unclassified work laptop. Neverthless, there are still multiple login requirements, and the kid had to be pretty stupid to see all the login steps required and then think, "Hmm, I think I'll download me some porn!" The fact that he was able to install software is a big fail on the part of the NSA. Standard user accounts (the dad's) should not have the ability to install software not on the agency's "advertised programs" list.
The dad's stupidity goes without saying, though I can guarantee he's not the first gov employee to break protocol like this. I mean, come on - we're the ones who have had people use their govt purchase cards for stuff like boob jobs for their girlfriends (true and documented) and somehow think they wouldn't get caught.
-
In NY obstruction of breathing and/or blood flow is a crime. I challenge anyone to grapple without incidentally doing either. I've not sat down in a police training session (I haven't been invited for some reason), but from dealing with clients and watching arrest videos, this is something that is happening. Out in the world of enforcement, there has been wild over-reach. I've had 4 such cases myself in the last two years, the public defender has had several dozen. All of mine were dismissed and I know almost all of the public defenders were likewise, or were reduced. You know a law is bad when despite being a by the elements slam dunk, the judge and prosecutor continually throw them out.
As for the libertarian notion; 'child porn' as generally defined by law includes cartoons. Folks have been in federal lockup for child porn where the offending material has been fictional writing, naked cartoons of the Simpsons in sexual situations, and other no actual children involved offenses. Creepy, but not actually hurting anyone.
Unless the charges actually state or make mention of flesh and blood human beings, my presumption is creepy Japanese imports and nutter butter prosecutors. Nutter Butter Prosecutors being a term of art ;)
As for the distinction between viewing and creation/dissemination/encouragement; I do find it offensive to lock someone away for 10 years because they saw something. Show me active participation or support/dissemination. The idea you can be locked away for less time for actually raping someone than you can for having clicked on video link from a skeezy website seems absurd and offensive to me. If anyone feels otherwise, please do explain as I don't understand the worldview from any generally accepted system of ethics.
And no, I am not doing your research for you. There are plenty of books out there on federal over-criminalization and abusive prosecution. CATO and other gov watchdogs even has presentations on the topic. I think it was at a federalist society event where I heard about the Simpsons Case and other 'child porn' disasters from directly involved attorneys. Tales of Gov. abuse and intimidation. I was interning with the Dept. of Justice at the time and had trouble imagining any office with so much free time or with such a perverse sense of priorities. But hey, it makes for great news items; especially when the general public has no idea what 'child porn' means in the legal sense.
I will continue offering up my rants and general opinions. If I had the free time to make scholarly articles, I'd have a blog.
Go read your article again cass; it actually talks about the choke hold still being in use; just discouraged and banned outright as an instruction.
And no, I do not support child pornography. But I will defend people's rights to make and view haikus, short stories, and offensive cartoons ect; even if the gov. decides to slap some extreme labels on them.
-
Ned: that's a whole lot of unrelated nonsense spewed out to obfuscate a very simple point. Setting aside "home videos" not intended for wider consumption, child porn is made because folks will buy it. So the people who supply the demand are culpable for the production, as they are the reason it exists.
I'm totally with you about prosecutorial over reach etc, I post about that all the time. But "child porn is victimless, well ok not really but the people who are the sole reason it is being created aren't responsible for it in any way!" is ridiculous.
-
Balog, I think at least some of Ned's point is that what is legally define as "child porn" does not seem to actually involve children.
=|
Creepy as hell, maybe, but if it's a cartoon drawing or just a fictional discription?
Do they prosecute those who write fictional rape fantasy porn that involves adult woman? I don't think they do (honestly, do they, Ned?) By that standard, how can we do the same to those who write fictional accounts of child abuse and rape?
As disgusting as it all is, can we really make it illigal without infringing on someones rights?
Too be honest, this whole thing kind of conserns me. I have books that include characters that are child prostitutes with fairly graphic discriptions of what they go through. The books are intended to strike up awareness of a horrible situation and depict other characters efforts to rescue the children from their situation. I would be deeply saddened to have such books considered illigal.
There is a very fine line between what is creepy and what is written in order to make people aware of some of the bad that is out there and hopefully inspireing those people to do something positive to stop it.
I'm not sure if I want the government writting laws that cannot distingush between the two, and I will tolerate creepy but completly fictional in order to retain the stuff that might force someone to open their eyes and make an effort to better our society.
-
Ned: that's a whole lot of unrelated nonsense spewed out to obfuscate a very simple point. Setting aside "home videos" not intended for wider consumption, child porn is made because folks will buy it. So the people who supply the demand are culpable for the production, as they are the reason it exists.
I'm totally with you about prosecutorial over reach etc, I post about that all the time. But "child porn is victimless, well ok not really but the people who are the sole reason it is being created aren't responsible for it in any way!" is ridiculous.
What blue said about definitions and gov over reach.
As for passive consumers... that being someone that paid no money, didn't pass it along ect.; what would you set the penalty at? If you say higher than if you kidnap someone and rape them; you may be eligible for a fed job. Felony level? Would you remove someone's voting rights for getting drunk and following some foreign hosted girls girls girls site? There are folks that go on underage girl/boy rape vacations.
I'm for fiction being legal.... if for no other reason than it makes the usual suspects more obvious. For the legal and moral wrong; I want the progression of penalties to make sense. Campaign fraud conviction akin to a traffic infraction? GPS on audio resting on a car seat worse than a DWI? Ramble ramble phone typing is cramping my finger. :mad:
-
You're conflating the issue. Some stuff that isn't child porn can get you prosecuted; so what? Doesn't affect actual child porn. Some crimes that are as serious if not more than child porn have lighter sentences; so what? Reacting to a "This is bad" statement by pointing out all the stuff that isn't being discussed that's broken in the legal system is just throwing out red herrings.
-
1. AFAIK it is not in fact the libertarian stance that child porn is a victimless crime.
2. If it was, that just means the libertarians are wrong.
It's the difference between actual kiddie porn and simulated or drawn.
If it didn't actually happen....how could that be a crime?
Some believe that the possession of the actual material should be separate from the making of the material....a view I don't completely share.....
-
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.
There's always the possibility of over reach of course, but I put laws barring fictional child porn on the same plain as laws barring beastiality. Yeah, it may not perfectly conform to some forms of libertarian thought, but I'm more or less ok with it. Is it a potential slippery slope? Sure. All laws are. Guess I'll need to turn in the old wookie suit now.
-
Saying "I assume anyone arrested for child porn is probably just an innocent buttercup with lollycon hentai" is naive bordering on the ludicrous.
Naw. Hear about it happening more than a dozen times the absence of details becomes conspicuous.
-
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.
There's always the possibility of over reach of course, but I put laws barring fictional child porn on the same plain as laws barring beastiality. Yeah, it may not perfectly conform to some forms of libertarian thought, but I'm more or less ok with it. Is it a potential slippery slope? Sure. All laws are. Guess I'll need to turn in the old wookie suit now.
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :facepalm:
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.
-
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.
-
The most commonly used versions of "sleeper" holds restrict blood flow througth the neck, not airflow through the airways.
Correct.
-
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?
-
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?
-
when liberty loving pervs start shipping it its no longerin their private abode
damn phone
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi149.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs54%2FBitFreakazoid%2FFunny%2Fthink_of_the_children_zps06760710.jpg&hash=6bbe7938368f9d7907726313d7d460f8204ac4f3)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
STOP MAKING ME AGREE WITH YOUR POST ROOSTER, IT FEELS WEIRD. =D