6 ms·

So the headline uses the word "pedophiles", but in the article the word is nowhere to be found. Maybe that's because this sting isn't necessarily about pedophil

So the headline uses the word "pedophiles", but in the article the word is nowhere to be found. Maybe that's because this sting isn't necessarily about pedophiles, but about people watching and trading child pornography. Using "pedophiles" only serves to reinforce the stigma of a already heavily stigmatized minority. The word "pedophile" should be defined as someone with a sexual attraction towards children. It doesn't describe behavior: people can choose to not act on the attraction, and many, invisible as they are, in fact do not. Also, the people operating and visiting that hidden service could have had other reasons for visiting. They are not necessarily all pedophiles.

paulddraper 11y ago
What's the better word?
- idbehold 11y ago
  I don't believe there is a specific term for someone who watches child pornography. Is there even a term for someone who watches legal consensual adult pornography?
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Voyeur?
    - idbehold 11y ago
      That's not specific to being legal, consensual, or adult.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Fan, consumer, or audience of U.S.-based porn. ;)
  - ficklepickle 11y ago
    Paedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Hebophiles are attracted to post-pubescent children, but possibly under the age of consent. I learned this from a Netflix documentary.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> Also, the people operating and visiting that hidden service could have had other reasons for visiting. Such as?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  "Research"
- placeybordeaux 11y ago
  Indexing
- singletonaccnt 11y ago
  To be clear, I meant other reasons than having a persistent sexual attraction towards children. Those other reasons can be: wanting to see physical abuse, seeing how abuse happens, finding a thrill in seeing something illegal, trying to see what gets you aroused, and many other reasons. The Dutch rapporteur for sexual abuse summarized that it is estimated that about 20% of the people caught for possessing child pornography are actual pedophiles, meaning people with a persistent sexual attraction towards children: http://www.nationaalrapporteur.nl/Images/nationaal-rapporteur.op-goede-grond.de-aanpak-van-seksueel-geweld-tegen-kinderen.2014_tcm63-550998.pdf http://www.nationaalrapporteur.nl/Images/nationaal-rapporteu...
jakejake 11y ago
I feel that people who watch child porn and find it appealing rather than repulsive - qualifies you as a pedophile in my book. It's certainly a lesser crime than actual sexual assault of a child. But watching sexual assault for enjoyment and trading in these videos is still a crime. The term pedophile fits just fine as far as I'm concerned.
- lotyrin 11y ago
  The distinction being made is the pedophiles which do not seek out those materials or participate at all in their distribution, not committing crimes.
- placeybordeaux 11y ago
  It's an overgeneralization, it's like conflating straight males with people that watch a male raping a female.
  - jakejake 11y ago
    I's say it would be more like comparing a male who rapes a female with a male who watches that rape. Regardless, though, the term "pedophile" by definition is someone who is sexually attracted to children. There is no distinction about whether or not they actually committed a sexual act with a child. A person who commits a sexual act with a child is by definition a pedophile and a rapist, since children cannot legally give sexual consent.
- Fjolsvith 11y ago
  A pedophile emotionally identifies with children. A perfect example of this was the guy in the movie Con-Air who sought out the little girl in the trailer park and sat with her to play at tea-time.
chatmasta 11y ago
If nobody visited the hidden service, the operator would have no reason to keep it running. Watching child porn fuels its demand, and therefore encourages its distribution.
- waterhouse 11y ago
  Are the viewers paying the operator? If not, I'm not sure you can really argue they're legally responsible for "encouraging" the operator. The operator could say, "I'm going to make another child abuse video for every million people that vote for Hillary Clinton", and no one would blame voters for "encouraging" him. Even if the operator has ads on the site, I don't think it's reasonable to call the viewers culpable--their financial contribution is unintentional, miniscule, and possibly negative if they used an ad-blocker. For all we know, the "operator" was just showing a dump of things he found on an abandoned site five years ago, and was not involved at all in the production, and had no intention to be. Or perhaps he applied the principles of the MPAA and pirated for free as much material as he could, and put it on his website for free so as to try to get viewers to stop paying the producers and supporting their crimes. (Which, by the way, is a strategy I would recommend law-enforcement pursue if they take their own arguments seriously. Spend federal money on servers hosting free, searchable torrents and direct downloads of CP; perhaps restrict it to material produced at least 20 years ago, and strip out or change any identifying metadata, so as to avoid any semblance of supporting or encouraging the producers of the materials.) If you want to make the case that the viewers are liable for supporting the production of child abuse materials, that's a specific claim that you would have to prove in any individual case. By no means is it to be assumed. What you mentioned was "encouraging its distribution", not "its production". Still, I can't imagine why the former would be rationally considered criminal except insofar as it contributes to the latter (notwithstanding rhetoric about "re-victimizing our children every time it is passed from one person to another"--which is completely absurd unless the viewers encounter the victims in real life and mistreat them in a way they wouldn't have if they didn't see the video, which seems outlandish--I doubt if it's even possible to track down the real-life identities of the victims most of the time).
  - 21 11y ago
knughit 11y ago
Is there a better word, as easy to pronounce? "Pedoviewers"?

paulddraper 11y ago

What's the better word?

idbehold 11y ago
I don't believe there is a specific term for someone who watches child pornography. Is there even a term for someone who watches legal consensual adult pornography?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Voyeur?
  - idbehold 11y ago
    That's not specific to being legal, consensual, or adult.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Fan, consumer, or audience of U.S.-based porn. ;)
- ficklepickle 11y ago
  Paedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Hebophiles are attracted to post-pubescent children, but possibly under the age of consent. I learned this from a Netflix documentary.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

> Also, the people operating and visiting that hidden service could have had other reasons for visiting. Such as?

ikeboy 11y ago
"Research"
placeybordeaux 11y ago
Indexing
singletonaccnt 11y ago
To be clear, I meant other reasons than having a persistent sexual attraction towards children. Those other reasons can be: wanting to see physical abuse, seeing how abuse happens, finding a thrill in seeing something illegal, trying to see what gets you aroused, and many other reasons. The Dutch rapporteur for sexual abuse summarized that it is estimated that about 20% of the people caught for possessing child pornography are actual pedophiles, meaning people with a persistent sexual attraction towards children: http://www.nationaalrapporteur.nl/Images/nationaal-rapporteur.op-goede-grond.de-aanpak-van-seksueel-geweld-tegen-kinderen.2014_tcm63-550998.pdf http://www.nationaalrapporteur.nl/Images/nationaal-rapporteu...

jakejake 11y ago

I feel that people who watch child porn and find it appealing rather than repulsive - qualifies you as a pedophile in my book. It's certainly a lesser crime than actual sexual assault of a child. But watching sexual assault for enjoyment and trading in these videos is still a crime. The term pedophile fits just fine as far as I'm concerned.

lotyrin 11y ago
The distinction being made is the pedophiles which do not seek out those materials or participate at all in their distribution, not committing crimes.
placeybordeaux 11y ago
It's an overgeneralization, it's like conflating straight males with people that watch a male raping a female.
- jakejake 11y ago
  I's say it would be more like comparing a male who rapes a female with a male who watches that rape. Regardless, though, the term "pedophile" by definition is someone who is sexually attracted to children. There is no distinction about whether or not they actually committed a sexual act with a child. A person who commits a sexual act with a child is by definition a pedophile and a rapist, since children cannot legally give sexual consent.
Fjolsvith 11y ago
A pedophile emotionally identifies with children. A perfect example of this was the guy in the movie Con-Air who sought out the little girl in the trailer park and sat with her to play at tea-time.

chatmasta 11y ago

If nobody visited the hidden service, the operator would have no reason to keep it running. Watching child porn fuels its demand, and therefore encourages its distribution.

waterhouse 11y ago
Are the viewers paying the operator? If not, I'm not sure you can really argue they're legally responsible for "encouraging" the operator. The operator could say, "I'm going to make another child abuse video for every million people that vote for Hillary Clinton", and no one would blame voters for "encouraging" him. Even if the operator has ads on the site, I don't think it's reasonable to call the viewers culpable--their financial contribution is unintentional, miniscule, and possibly negative if they used an ad-blocker. For all we know, the "operator" was just showing a dump of things he found on an abandoned site five years ago, and was not involved at all in the production, and had no intention to be. Or perhaps he applied the principles of the MPAA and pirated for free as much material as he could, and put it on his website for free so as to try to get viewers to stop paying the producers and supporting their crimes. (Which, by the way, is a strategy I would recommend law-enforcement pursue if they take their own arguments seriously. Spend federal money on servers hosting free, searchable torrents and direct downloads of CP; perhaps restrict it to material produced at least 20 years ago, and strip out or change any identifying metadata, so as to avoid any semblance of supporting or encouraging the producers of the materials.) If you want to make the case that the viewers are liable for supporting the production of child abuse materials, that's a specific claim that you would have to prove in any individual case. By no means is it to be assumed. What you mentioned was "encouraging its distribution", not "its production". Still, I can't imagine why the former would be rationally considered criminal except insofar as it contributes to the latter (notwithstanding rhetoric about "re-victimizing our children every time it is passed from one person to another"--which is completely absurd unless the viewers encounter the victims in real life and mistreat them in a way they wouldn't have if they didn't see the video, which seems outlandish--I doubt if it's even possible to track down the real-life identities of the victims most of the time).
- 21 11y ago

knughit 11y ago

Is there a better word, as easy to pronounce? "Pedoviewers"?