3 ms·
we've had this argument before I recall ;) > I wonder if there's a study into how successful internet child porn laws are at actually preventing crime. I dont
by ErrantX 17y ago
we've had this argument before I recall ;)
> I wonder if there's a study into how successful internet child porn laws are at actually preventing crime.
I dont know of one. The trouble is work in that area is actually classified (I cant remember to what level). So we can only work with the data we know of (i.e. ours) - same for every company/force working on such cases. Second problem is that it is usually quite a fragmented field from detection through investigation and to trial that collating accurate stats is even harder.
I might try to put something together though.
In terms of:
> We're living in an age where you can view videos of beheadings, people send around youtubes of some guy being electricuted on top of a train.
I actually agree the law is a bit wierd here. For example if those images or video's also included something class able as pornography it become extreme porn and hence illegal (at least here in the UK). Im not really sure where I stand on that (apart from the fact that the point is the viewer is more likely "getting off" on the porn or something)
> but post a pic of your baby enjoying bathtime and you'll be hunted down and burned as a witch
If you post it on a pedophile network well, then, probably you will be :) On other sites? Highly unlikely. And if you are investigated someone like me will prove the negative.
Please dont forget; the VAST majority of people are caught in 3 ways:
- by actively downloading from known and watched pedophile networks
- by being caught IRL by someone and reported to the police
- by grooming youngsters on the web and the victim / victims parents reporting it (sort of like #2 but more pro-active)
As to the legality or morality of viewing these images; I choose not to comment. Because I suspect we differ entirely there.
With all of that said:
> and that there a thousands of them ready to strike on YOUR kids when you least expect it.
I could not agree more with such a sentiment. It really annoys me (along with my colleagues) that the media/govt. persist these attitudes. It actually damages our efforts too.
- axod 17y ago>> "As to the legality or morality of viewing these images; I choose not to comment. Because I suspect we differ entirely there." Are you saying you believe simply viewing particular light patterns should be a crime? It's just bizarre. But as you say, I guess we disagree on that point. Should "thinking inappropriate thoughts about minors" be a crime also? Should we develop brain monitors and all wear funny hats? If you believe viewing such images should be illegal, then even law enforcement officers should not be able to view them - otherwise how do we know if they secretly 'enjoy' looking at them. The whole sorry exercise is one of thought policing.
- ErrantX 17y ago> Are you saying you believe simply viewing particular light patterns should be a crime? I think your deconstructing too far. And I think your not equating the act of viewing with the effect further up the chain; aka the abuse. > Should "thinking inappropriate thoughts about minors" be a crime also? No, clearly not. But I think there isn't a single line in the sand regarding this. Would you be comfortable with someone interacting with your kids who goes home and uses them in his/her sexual fantasies? There is a hazy line and we must use common sense to ensure minors are protected. In the case of thoughts, no I dont think they should be illegal. But if someone admits to having such thoughts I think it should be legal to say "I dont want to around my kids". > If you believe viewing such images should be illegal, then even law enforcement officers should not be able to view them This is where your missing the point entirely; the whole issue is context. Think of it this way; viewing the images is, perhaps, impossible to define as illegal. However viewing and distributing these images feeds the cycle of abuse and so the viewers are directly or indirectly perpetrators. If XYZ person viewed an officially indecent image with no sexual motive (either accidentally, in the course of their job or for whatever reason) do I think they should be prosecuted? No!
- axod 17y ago>> "And I think your not equating the act of viewing with the effect further up the chain; aka the abuse." I know there's a multitude of complexities here, but I think 'viewing images' should never be illegal. Paying for someone to obtain images that involve illegal activities should definitely be illegal. So maybe we sort of agree after all...