5 ms·

Everyone who even knew about the computer webcam spying should go to prison. The fact that this could have been used as spying for child pornography- should be

by dbz 17y ago

Everyone who even knew about the computer webcam spying should go to prison. The fact that this could have been used as spying for child pornography- should be treated as an attempt of attaining child pornography.

Confusion 17y ago
No it shouldn't. As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made. The invasion of our rights in the name of our children has gone far enough. You shouldn't gratuitously say anything that encourages child pornography hysteria. You are just saying it because it serves your point that these guys should be punished severely. However, not even these guys deserve to be branded as child pornographers if they aren't.
- anamax 17y ago
  > As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made. That's not how child porn laws work. Laws should always be enforced most harshly against govt agents and folks who actually advocate the laws in question. Govt employment is not a right and if someone is unwilling to accept heightened scrutiny, they can work for someone who is willing to accomodate that preference.
  - lambda 17y ago
    No, laws should be applied equally to everyone. You should not be punished more harshly because you are a "government agent." What does your postal clerk have to do with some idiot congressman who passed too strict a law on child porn?
    - dnsworks 17y ago
      Why? Crimes against government agents are prosecuted far more severely than crimes against the common man. If you rob a post office at gunpoint, it's a federal felony, with more extreme punishments than if you rob a corner store at gunpoint. The law singles out government employees as being more important than the common man in terms of protection.
      - kelnos 17y ago
        You've answered your own question. The law doesn't say government agents who engage in child pornography should be punished more severely than regular citizens. In the case of holding up a post office at gunpoint, it's not applying the law differently because the law is different. FWIW, my understanding is that messing with the post in general is a federal crime. It has nothing to do with the government employee being more 'important' than the common man; that's just an unintended side effect.
        anamax 17y ago
        > The law doesn't say government agents who engage in child pornography should be punished more severely than regular citizens. We know. We think that the law is wrong. Note that DAs tend to give their fellow govt employees, especially police, a pass, so in practice the law is easier on govt employees. It's a trifecta of tribal, lobbying by govt employees, and "one hand washes the other". > It has nothing to do with the government employee being more 'important' than the common man; that's just an unintended side effect. Actually, it's quite intended. Look into the history of how those laws came about. They were lobbied for by govt employees. And then there's the fact that DAs tend to go hard whenever a fellow govt employee is a victim. It's the same trifecta.
    - wtallis 17y ago
      Postal workers shouldn't necessarily be blamed for pornography laws, but that doesn't mean government agents should be treated equally. Highway patrol officers who break traffic laws without using lights and sirens should be punished more severely than a first-time offender who is a normal citizen. Cops who abuse their power need to serve prison time. With great power comes great responsibility. We give our public school teachers a lot of power over the lives of our kids, by entrusting our kids to them for several hours a day. If they abuse the public trust, the potential for damage is much higher, and the punishment should be correspondingly more severe. If we let our schools enact zero-tolerance policies for punishing our kids, we have the right to enact zero-tolerance laws for them f*ing with our kids' lives.
      - kelnos 17y ago
        "If they abuse the public trust, the potential for damage is much higher, and the punishment should be correspondingly more severe." I don't disagree, but that's not what the law says. Get it into a law, and then reality will match up with your belief.
      - gridspy 17y ago
        I hate to think what would happen to a police officer serving serious time in a normal prison.
    - anamax 17y ago
      Govt workers typically have great authority to impose things on other people. For example, school officials can suspend students. If they're not up to being held to a higher standard, they're not up to having authority. Plus, enforcing more harshly on them brings attention to bad laws. Like I said, if they're unwilling to accept this, if they want to be treated like an ordinary citizen, they can quit govt work and become one. No one is forcing them to work for govt.
      - koepked 17y ago
        Some government workers have great authority to impose things on people, but I don't know if I'd agree that it's typical.
        anamax 17y ago
        > Some government workers have great authority to impose things on people, but I don't know if I'd agree that it's typical. Every paper-pusher can make your life a living hell. Every teacher and adminstrator can punish your kid. And, I haven't even mentioned police, DAs, judges, and folks who are supposed to exercise discretion. Janitors and the equivalent are about the only govt employees who don't have considerable power. They're a small minority of govt workers.
        andrewcooke 17y ago
        the problem is not "government"; the problem is "power". it is power that is being abused. whether that power comes through the government, or through other means is largely irrelevant. i wish americans would understand this. that they don't means that abuses of power are treated in two completely different ways here. if it's the government, it's bad. if it's anything else (which typically means a private company) then it's "you shouldn't expect anything else you naive fool".
        anamax 17y ago
        > the problem is not "government"; the problem is "power". it is power that is being abused. whether that power comes through the government, or through other means is largely irrelevant. Except that it's not, because govt power is qualitatively different. A company can't throw you in jail. All that a company can do is refuse to deal with you. > i wish americans would understand this. I wish that non-Americans actually understood power. Real power is when someone can do something to me or stop other people from dealing with me. It isn't when they refuse to deal with me.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  "As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made." I think the argument is that secretly videotaping children within their own homes is inherently sexual. And even if it isn't, this seems like a clear violation of Roe v Wade.

by dbz 17y ago

Confusion 17y ago

No it shouldn't. As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made. The invasion of our rights in the name of our children has gone far enough. You shouldn't gratuitously say anything that encourages child pornography hysteria. You are just saying it because it serves your point that these guys should be punished severely. However, not even these guys deserve to be branded as child pornographers if they aren't.

anamax 17y ago
> As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made. That's not how child porn laws work. Laws should always be enforced most harshly against govt agents and folks who actually advocate the laws in question. Govt employment is not a right and if someone is unwilling to accept heightened scrutiny, they can work for someone who is willing to accomodate that preference.
- lambda 17y ago
  No, laws should be applied equally to everyone. You should not be punished more harshly because you are a "government agent." What does your postal clerk have to do with some idiot congressman who passed too strict a law on child porn?
  - dnsworks 17y ago
    Why? Crimes against government agents are prosecuted far more severely than crimes against the common man. If you rob a post office at gunpoint, it's a federal felony, with more extreme punishments than if you rob a corner store at gunpoint. The law singles out government employees as being more important than the common man in terms of protection.
    - kelnos 17y ago
      You've answered your own question. The law doesn't say government agents who engage in child pornography should be punished more severely than regular citizens. In the case of holding up a post office at gunpoint, it's not applying the law differently because the law is different. FWIW, my understanding is that messing with the post in general is a federal crime. It has nothing to do with the government employee being more 'important' than the common man; that's just an unintended side effect.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > The law doesn't say government agents who engage in child pornography should be punished more severely than regular citizens. We know. We think that the law is wrong. Note that DAs tend to give their fellow govt employees, especially police, a pass, so in practice the law is easier on govt employees. It's a trifecta of tribal, lobbying by govt employees, and "one hand washes the other". > It has nothing to do with the government employee being more 'important' than the common man; that's just an unintended side effect. Actually, it's quite intended. Look into the history of how those laws came about. They were lobbied for by govt employees. And then there's the fact that DAs tend to go hard whenever a fellow govt employee is a victim. It's the same trifecta.
  - wtallis 17y ago
    Postal workers shouldn't necessarily be blamed for pornography laws, but that doesn't mean government agents should be treated equally. Highway patrol officers who break traffic laws without using lights and sirens should be punished more severely than a first-time offender who is a normal citizen. Cops who abuse their power need to serve prison time. With great power comes great responsibility. We give our public school teachers a lot of power over the lives of our kids, by entrusting our kids to them for several hours a day. If they abuse the public trust, the potential for damage is much higher, and the punishment should be correspondingly more severe. If we let our schools enact zero-tolerance policies for punishing our kids, we have the right to enact zero-tolerance laws for them f*ing with our kids' lives.
    - kelnos 17y ago
      "If they abuse the public trust, the potential for damage is much higher, and the punishment should be correspondingly more severe." I don't disagree, but that's not what the law says. Get it into a law, and then reality will match up with your belief.
    - gridspy 17y ago
      I hate to think what would happen to a police officer serving serious time in a normal prison.
  - anamax 17y ago
    Govt workers typically have great authority to impose things on other people. For example, school officials can suspend students. If they're not up to being held to a higher standard, they're not up to having authority. Plus, enforcing more harshly on them brings attention to bad laws. Like I said, if they're unwilling to accept this, if they want to be treated like an ordinary citizen, they can quit govt work and become one. No one is forcing them to work for govt.
    - koepked 17y ago
      Some government workers have great authority to impose things on people, but I don't know if I'd agree that it's typical.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > Some government workers have great authority to impose things on people, but I don't know if I'd agree that it's typical. Every paper-pusher can make your life a living hell. Every teacher and adminstrator can punish your kid. And, I haven't even mentioned police, DAs, judges, and folks who are supposed to exercise discretion. Janitors and the equivalent are about the only govt employees who don't have considerable power. They're a small minority of govt workers.
        andrewcooke 17y ago
        the problem is not "government"; the problem is "power". it is power that is being abused. whether that power comes through the government, or through other means is largely irrelevant. i wish americans would understand this. that they don't means that abuses of power are treated in two completely different ways here. if it's the government, it's bad. if it's anything else (which typically means a private company) then it's "you shouldn't expect anything else you naive fool".
        anamax 17y ago
        > the problem is not "government"; the problem is "power". it is power that is being abused. whether that power comes through the government, or through other means is largely irrelevant. Except that it's not, because govt power is qualitatively different. A company can't throw you in jail. All that a company can do is refuse to deal with you. > i wish americans would understand this. I wish that non-Americans actually understood power. Real power is when someone can do something to me or stop other people from dealing with me. It isn't when they refuse to deal with me.
Alex3917 17y ago
"As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made." I think the argument is that secretly videotaping children within their own homes is inherently sexual. And even if it isn't, this seems like a clear violation of Roe v Wade.