6 ms·

My point was it's probably not wise to assume what the authorities may or may not find actionable.

ErrantX 16y ago
Ah, I see. Well I work in investigating computer pedophilia (among other things). Obviously there is still a caveat of "within my experience" but I am quite confident that nothing will come of this particular complaint to the FBI.
- pyre 16y ago
  I think that what may happen in a lot of these cases is that the authorities subscribe to the, "if there's smoke, there's fire," train of thought. If they see that someone has art of small children (or just 'under age' children), they'll probably bust down their door hoping to find actual child porn. If they don't, then they'll try to make 'child porn' charges stick using just the art because the authorities involved at this point either don't like the person or just don't want to admit that they were wrong (and spent a bunch of wasted time for nothing).
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    The problem is this; if you receive a complaint about child pornography what do you do? If it's about an individual and the complaint is not by a family member etc. then probably not much will take place. But as soon as there is reasonable cause for suspicion then an officer is on dangerous territory - if it turns out there was abuse etc. going on then they are screwed (usually by the media) if it is uncovered later. If it is about a public place etc. like the gallery example they really have to take a look/action. Removing the image is standard - if it turns out to be CP and the Police left it up then there would be hell to pay ;) The problem is defining if it is CP or not - and you will find some lawyers whose sole purpose for the UK CPS is to assess if images break CP laws and can be prosecuted etc. You will see mistakes; predominantly of the side of innocent people being investigated. But, again, many of the child protection officers are not idiots - they spend their career investigating these cases and, so, will be able to make a decent judgement whether there is merit in the accusations or not. If they don't, then they'll try to make 'child porn' charges stick using just the art because the authorities involved at this point either don't like the person or just don't want to admit that they were wrong Bullshit I am afraid. Fortunately the law doesn't work like this. Also, CP charges are hard enough to make stick at the moment for all sorts of reasons - it would fall apart due to impracticality.
    - pyre 16y ago
      > Bullshit I am afraid. Fortunately the law doesn't work like this. Also, CP charges are hard enough to make stick at the moment for all sorts of reasons - it would fall apart due to impracticality. I'm more referring to the idea that the guy 'got off' because they couldn't find any child porn, so they charge him with anything they can find (e.g. unpaid parking ticket).
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        Hmm. Probably not to be honest, fortunately most police aren't really like that.

Ah, I see. Well I work in investigating computer pedophilia (among other things). Obviously there is still a caveat of "within my experience" but I am quite confident that nothing will come of this particular complaint to the FBI.

pyre 16y ago
I think that what may happen in a lot of these cases is that the authorities subscribe to the, "if there's smoke, there's fire," train of thought. If they see that someone has art of small children (or just 'under age' children), they'll probably bust down their door hoping to find actual child porn. If they don't, then they'll try to make 'child porn' charges stick using just the art because the authorities involved at this point either don't like the person or just don't want to admit that they were wrong (and spent a bunch of wasted time for nothing).
- ErrantX 16y ago
  The problem is this; if you receive a complaint about child pornography what do you do? If it's about an individual and the complaint is not by a family member etc. then probably not much will take place. But as soon as there is reasonable cause for suspicion then an officer is on dangerous territory - if it turns out there was abuse etc. going on then they are screwed (usually by the media) if it is uncovered later. If it is about a public place etc. like the gallery example they really have to take a look/action. Removing the image is standard - if it turns out to be CP and the Police left it up then there would be hell to pay ;) The problem is defining if it is CP or not - and you will find some lawyers whose sole purpose for the UK CPS is to assess if images break CP laws and can be prosecuted etc. You will see mistakes; predominantly of the side of innocent people being investigated. But, again, many of the child protection officers are not idiots - they spend their career investigating these cases and, so, will be able to make a decent judgement whether there is merit in the accusations or not. If they don't, then they'll try to make 'child porn' charges stick using just the art because the authorities involved at this point either don't like the person or just don't want to admit that they were wrong Bullshit I am afraid. Fortunately the law doesn't work like this. Also, CP charges are hard enough to make stick at the moment for all sorts of reasons - it would fall apart due to impracticality.
  - pyre 16y ago
    > Bullshit I am afraid. Fortunately the law doesn't work like this. Also, CP charges are hard enough to make stick at the moment for all sorts of reasons - it would fall apart due to impracticality. I'm more referring to the idea that the guy 'got off' because they couldn't find any child porn, so they charge him with anything they can find (e.g. unpaid parking ticket).
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Hmm. Probably not to be honest, fortunately most police aren't really like that.