12 ms·

I don't think drug offenders should be put in prison since it's a victimless crime. I think child porno while much more serious does invoke some of that chain o

I don't think drug offenders should be put in prison since it's a victimless crime. I think child porno while much more serious does invoke some of that chain of reasoning. To me there is a big difference between a guy who found some on the internet and someone who produces or pays for it. I would be wary of putting in minimum sentencing for such crimes unless it was only targeted towards those producing/paying as you can reach murky area's. Two i can think of off the top of my head would be finding images inside someone's browser cache who browses a site like 4chan where people will post it randomly. That and art, if someone draws child pornography is that a crime? If blizzard says one of their overwatch characters is 17, are the people who make those animated porno videos making child porn? And are the people watching it consuming child porn?

gscott 10y ago
There was a sex offender who wrote on paper fictional stories of child sex and he was put back into jail for a violation of his parole (for writing it, never shared it). If you have child pornography the law considers it the same as taking the photo and you can be sued civilly by the victims. People love it when lawmakers make more laws.
- caf 10y ago
  Remember that parolees are still under sentence. There are almost always restrictions on parolees that go beyond those on the general population - that is the whole point of the parole system, you agree to live under sometimes onerous restrictions in return for being allowed out before your sentence is up.
jMyles 10y ago
> That and art, if someone draws child pornography is that a crime? If blizzard says one of their overwatch characters is 17, are the people who make those animated porno videos making child porn? And are the people watching it consuming child porn? The answers to these questions are obvious: no and no. If the answers are any different or short of being absolute, then that's a clear hole in the first amendment.
- girvo 10y ago
  In Australia, cartoon child porn is also illegal.
  - taneq 10y ago
    In fact, IIRC even actual porn containing only provably adult actors is illegal if a judge decides it looks like someone might be underage.
    - braveo 10y ago
      I remember reading about a case where a porn star actually showed up to a trial of her own volition and showed the judge her license to prove she was over 18 when she did the film. Had she not responded when the guys lawyers contacted her, the accused would've gone to jail for child porn. That's how insane and scary these laws are. I'm all for coming down hard on someone for having cp, but it wasn't cp, just a young looking actress.
- icebraining 10y ago
  "18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene (...) or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction. It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    > (B) is obscene Those two words are hiding a lot. For example, it's probably not obscene in Oregon, since part of the Miller test defers to state law and we have a stronger state equivalent of the 1st amendment in our state constitution that would allow it. And if you wrapped it in a story(like a manga or comic), it would be easier to argue that it has literary or artistic merit. Though, a "states' rights" argument would probably be more likely to succeed.

gscott 10y ago

There was a sex offender who wrote on paper fictional stories of child sex and he was put back into jail for a violation of his parole (for writing it, never shared it). If you have child pornography the law considers it the same as taking the photo and you can be sued civilly by the victims. People love it when lawmakers make more laws.

caf 10y ago
Remember that parolees are still under sentence. There are almost always restrictions on parolees that go beyond those on the general population - that is the whole point of the parole system, you agree to live under sometimes onerous restrictions in return for being allowed out before your sentence is up.

jMyles 10y ago

> That and art, if someone draws child pornography is that a crime? If blizzard says one of their overwatch characters is 17, are the people who make those animated porno videos making child porn? And are the people watching it consuming child porn? The answers to these questions are obvious: no and no. If the answers are any different or short of being absolute, then that's a clear hole in the first amendment.

girvo 10y ago
In Australia, cartoon child porn is also illegal.
- taneq 10y ago
  In fact, IIRC even actual porn containing only provably adult actors is illegal if a judge decides it looks like someone might be underage.
  - braveo 10y ago
    I remember reading about a case where a porn star actually showed up to a trial of her own volition and showed the judge her license to prove she was over 18 when she did the film. Had she not responded when the guys lawyers contacted her, the accused would've gone to jail for child porn. That's how insane and scary these laws are. I'm all for coming down hard on someone for having cp, but it wasn't cp, just a young looking actress.
icebraining 10y ago
"18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene (...) or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction. It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  > (B) is obscene Those two words are hiding a lot. For example, it's probably not obscene in Oregon, since part of the Miller test defers to state law and we have a stronger state equivalent of the 1st amendment in our state constitution that would allow it. And if you wrapped it in a story(like a manga or comic), it would be easier to argue that it has literary or artistic merit. Though, a "states' rights" argument would probably be more likely to succeed.