4 ms·

s/rape/statutory rape/g In our current environment, this is mostly a pedantic distinction because almost all child porn is produced in an otherwise abusive env

s/rape/statutory rape/g In our current environment, this is mostly a pedantic distinction because almost all child porn is produced in an otherwise abusive environment. Also, the definition of child porn is far broader than what would be required to meet the definition of rape, which requires penetration. [0] The definition of child porn is also sufficiently broad to include any pornographic image that depicts an identifiable minor in a sexual act, whether or not said minor was actually ingaged in said act, or involved in the production in any way. The FBI also has a stash of already created child porn. Any harm resulting from the creation of said porn has already been done, and is therefore not a reason to not use it in order to reduce future harm. [0] Technically, many jurisdictions do not have any form of "statatury rape", but instead use other crimes like sexual abuse.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> s/rape/statutory rape/g We're not talking about a 25 year old filming his 17 year old girlfriend giving him head here. This is the kind of stuff where the people involved cannot consent. Your spellchecker is broken.
- gizmo686 10y ago
  >We're not talking about a 25 year old filming his 17 year old girlfriend giving him head here. Yes we are. What you describe is child pornography. Depending on jurisdiction, the girlfriend cannot consent. Even in jurisdictions where she can consent, it is still child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old is acting alone, it is child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old draws a picture of herself masturbating, it is child porn. I guest you are correct, my comment should read: s/rape/depiction in a sexual manner/g Either way, my point is that we should be careful of the language we use, and recognize that child pornography is far broader than circumstances that would generally be considered "rape" are. My phrasing was sub-optimal due to my other problem with the conflation of statutory rape and normal rape.
- thomas_duncan12 10y ago
  Actually we don't know. It's impossible to know. The government tells us these individuals shared horrifying pictures, but if a journalist (for example) wanted to verify these claims, she'd face prison time too for downloading the images. So in theory it could mostly be a bunch of nude selfies taken by 16 and 17 year old teens which are circulating around these websites. Or maybe it really is horrific imagery of babies and toddlers being brutally raped, as horrifying as that sounds. Impossible to know. If it's the former, I have a serious problem sending people away to prison for decades because they want to see a nude 16 year old (keep in mind by the way the age of consent is 16 in most states). If it's the latter, then by all means. I guess I'm just an optimist, but I have a hard time believing that tens of thousands of people on just this one site want to see toddlers being brutalized. Additionally, I would hope that the supply of such images is quite low. On the other hand, I would imagine there are many more people interested in 16/17 year olds, coupled with the fact that almost every teenager has a camera in his or her pocket, means that the supply of those pictures would be far greater and far more subject to sharing. When the FBI says "suspect X was found with thousands of child porn images including toddlers under 5," that could be 2,000 images of nude teen selfies with 2 toddler images accidentally downloaded. But it's really impossible to know what's going on - it's illegal to do any independent investigative work and this stuff never makes it to a jury. The FBI just has free reign and they tell us "just trust us."
- Hondor 10y ago
  The idea the some people "cannot consent" is disproven by the fact that some countries allow underage people to have consensual sex with each other but not with overage people. Somehow they can consent sometimes but not other times. Where I'm from, it's common for kids to be having sex at 13. They "can't consent" but somehow do it anyway without breaking the law.
  - thomas_duncan12 10y ago
    Don't forget that if a 21 year old has consensual sex with a 15 year old, he might end up ostracized on national TV (To Catch a Predator), arrested, thrown in prison, and forced to register as a sex offender for life, while in France or Italy (among many other countries) there would be no story and both parties would continue life as usual, possibly getting married and having kids (as did many couples of similar age a couple of generations ago). It is troubling that age alone determines whether a rape occurred. That is insulting to real rape victims.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    I'm not talking about 14 year olds; I'm talking about people in single digits, and children who can't walk yet.
Mtinie 10y ago
> The FBI also has a stash of already created child porn. Any harm resulting from the creation of said porn has already been done, and is therefore not a reason to not use it in order to reduce future harm. I'd like to play the Devil's Advocate here. Isn't that application of intent and affect the same as a convicted viewer could use to explain why they didn't hurt anyone? They weren't the person behind the camera, nor the person who had sexual relations with the child, so what harm is their consumption of the content? The government also has a substantial quantity of already produced narcaotics, opiates, psychadellics, and other Schedule 1 drugs that they've confiscated from suppliers and users. Are they free to sell a portion of those drugs in order to find people they can target for future prosecution? I'm not talking about stings where no actual product is exchanged, but months of supplying communities with illegal drugs.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
lawnchair_larry 10y ago
Any harm resulting from the creation of said porn has already been done, and is therefore not a reason to not use it in order to reduce future harm. Easy to say if it isn't you or your kids getting raped on video.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

> s/rape/statutory rape/g We're not talking about a 25 year old filming his 17 year old girlfriend giving him head here. This is the kind of stuff where the people involved cannot consent. Your spellchecker is broken.

gizmo686 10y ago
>We're not talking about a 25 year old filming his 17 year old girlfriend giving him head here. Yes we are. What you describe is child pornography. Depending on jurisdiction, the girlfriend cannot consent. Even in jurisdictions where she can consent, it is still child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old is acting alone, it is child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old draws a picture of herself masturbating, it is child porn. I guest you are correct, my comment should read: s/rape/depiction in a sexual manner/g Either way, my point is that we should be careful of the language we use, and recognize that child pornography is far broader than circumstances that would generally be considered "rape" are. My phrasing was sub-optimal due to my other problem with the conflation of statutory rape and normal rape.
thomas_duncan12 10y ago
Actually we don't know. It's impossible to know. The government tells us these individuals shared horrifying pictures, but if a journalist (for example) wanted to verify these claims, she'd face prison time too for downloading the images. So in theory it could mostly be a bunch of nude selfies taken by 16 and 17 year old teens which are circulating around these websites. Or maybe it really is horrific imagery of babies and toddlers being brutally raped, as horrifying as that sounds. Impossible to know. If it's the former, I have a serious problem sending people away to prison for decades because they want to see a nude 16 year old (keep in mind by the way the age of consent is 16 in most states). If it's the latter, then by all means. I guess I'm just an optimist, but I have a hard time believing that tens of thousands of people on just this one site want to see toddlers being brutalized. Additionally, I would hope that the supply of such images is quite low. On the other hand, I would imagine there are many more people interested in 16/17 year olds, coupled with the fact that almost every teenager has a camera in his or her pocket, means that the supply of those pictures would be far greater and far more subject to sharing. When the FBI says "suspect X was found with thousands of child porn images including toddlers under 5," that could be 2,000 images of nude teen selfies with 2 toddler images accidentally downloaded. But it's really impossible to know what's going on - it's illegal to do any independent investigative work and this stuff never makes it to a jury. The FBI just has free reign and they tell us "just trust us."
Hondor 10y ago
The idea the some people "cannot consent" is disproven by the fact that some countries allow underage people to have consensual sex with each other but not with overage people. Somehow they can consent sometimes but not other times. Where I'm from, it's common for kids to be having sex at 13. They "can't consent" but somehow do it anyway without breaking the law.
- thomas_duncan12 10y ago
  Don't forget that if a 21 year old has consensual sex with a 15 year old, he might end up ostracized on national TV (To Catch a Predator), arrested, thrown in prison, and forced to register as a sex offender for life, while in France or Italy (among many other countries) there would be no story and both parties would continue life as usual, possibly getting married and having kids (as did many couples of similar age a couple of generations ago). It is troubling that age alone determines whether a rape occurred. That is insulting to real rape victims.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  I'm not talking about 14 year olds; I'm talking about people in single digits, and children who can't walk yet.

Mtinie 10y ago

> The FBI also has a stash of already created child porn. Any harm resulting from the creation of said porn has already been done, and is therefore not a reason to not use it in order to reduce future harm. I'd like to play the Devil's Advocate here. Isn't that application of intent and affect the same as a convicted viewer could use to explain why they didn't hurt anyone? They weren't the person behind the camera, nor the person who had sexual relations with the child, so what harm is their consumption of the content? The government also has a substantial quantity of already produced narcaotics, opiates, psychadellics, and other Schedule 1 drugs that they've confiscated from suppliers and users. Are they free to sell a portion of those drugs in order to find people they can target for future prosecution? I'm not talking about stings where no actual product is exchanged, but months of supplying communities with illegal drugs.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

lawnchair_larry 10y ago

Any harm resulting from the creation of said porn has already been done, and is therefore not a reason to not use it in order to reduce future harm. Easy to say if it isn't you or your kids getting raped on video.