4 ms·

>Legal details aside, my question was more about whether it's morally right to sentence someone to eighteen years for the crimes described in the article? Post

>Legal details aside, my question was more about whether it's morally right to sentence someone to eighteen years for the crimes described in the article? Posting child porn and death threats? Yeah, that's worth 18 years.

inoop 15y ago
You're oversimplifying. 'Posting child porn' for example turns out to be 'posting a single picture of a pubescent girl having sex with two young boys'. Note that we have not seen the picture, so the girls' age can be anywhere between 10-17 (age range according to Wikipedia article on puberty). Note also that this picture was selected for shock value, and no other child pornography was reported found on the guys' computer. The death threat was to a prominent politician who probably gets such emails on an hourly basis by cooks from all around the country. So basically what you're saying is that eighteen years is appropriate punishment for being a 4chan troll?
- tptacek 15y ago
  In other words, "posting child porn" for example turns out to be "posting child porn". Full disclosure: I stopped reading here and downvoted you. I've also immediately revised my (previously more measured) take on all your previous comments.
  - Confusion 15y ago
    Grumpy today, are we? I would've thought someone like you would be able to go beyond "omfg, kiddie pr0n", but apparently possessing a single image that is legally child pornography (we'll probably never know what the actual contents were, so we can see if we agree with that legal judgment), that he may very well have downloaded from an a place like 4chan, where it was publicly available, is enough to morally justify sentencing someone for possession of child pornography? I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then. Irregardless of whether you agree with the above argument, completely 'revising your opinion of me' for a single argument in a single case where you are conversing via a rather incomplete/miscommunication prone medium like this, seems rather like overreacting.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      No, I'm not going to get past someone intentionally keeping and trafficking in child pornography. If anything, I'm perturbed that I've given you the impression that I'd be sanguine about it. When I read someone suggesting that the state has sentenced someone abusively, then later find a comment where that same person says posting actual images of child pornography isn't a big deal --- or, as I found even further downthread, that physically molesting a child is something that warrants a stern conversation rather than police intervention --- I'm inclined to believe that person has very little to say about sentencing that I am going to find reasonable. You are free to your own opinion about this case, and about 'inoop's comments.
    - lotharbot 15y ago
      > I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then. You think wrong. There are two crucial differences between the average porn owner and the vindictive neighbor. The relevant laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, 2252A, and others[0], repeatedly use the word "knowingly". The vindictive neighbor did in fact knowingly possess and distribute a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual activity. A person who has a large stash of porn that happens to include a pic of a 17 year old that they don't know about is legally safe. In particular, the law allows a person in possession of fewer than 3 pieces of material to make an "affirmative defense"[1] if, upon discovering it, they either take reasonable steps to destroy the material or immediately report its existence to law enforcement. So the average owner of a stash of porn, upon discovering kiddie pics in his stash, can avoid all liability and culpability merely by destroying it or turning it over to the cops. The vindictive neighbor did neither. I would argue both of these legal points are also moral points -- knowing you possess child pornography, and knowingly keeping it, is a whole different offense than accidentally possessing it and then destroying it or turning it over to the cops when you realize the situation. EDIT: as to the broader point as to whether the sentence is justified, you can read the government's entire argument[2]. It describes the photo in detail on page 8; the individuals depicted are prepubescent, not "almost legal". It also describes the rest of the case; note that the sentence is not merely a child porn sentence, but includes identity theft, threats to the VP, violation of his initial release conditions, lying under oath, coaching witnesses, etc. The government explains the length of sentence starting on page 27. [0] http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476 http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?L... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense [2] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolffedssentencingmemo.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolf...
  - inoop 15y ago
    See if you can get around to reading the last line though.
  - AndyKelley 15y ago
    This is a bit rude. The grandparent's post is not stupid - he has a valid point.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I respectfully disagree.
  - vacri 15y ago
    In the case of a 17-year-old, are you really suggesting that this person - who has the full right to have actual sex with whoever they choose (bar perhaps a guardian) pretty much all over the developed world - that a photo of this person is just as much 'child porn' as a 10-year-old? The world is shades of grey, not the black and white you're demanding.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Ardolf named this electronic image “Matt’s Kids.jpg.” See Govt. Tr. Ex. 5-2. This is an image of known child pornography identified as the “Sabban series,” where the children depicted have been identified. It has been confirmed that at the time the photographs were created, the children were minors. See Govt. Tr. Ex. 81. The “Sabban series” of child pornography was created by two individuals in Brazil, who sexually abused and photographed three children over a several-year period.
      - vacri 15y ago
        That doesn't invalidate what's been said here. What you quote is not in the main article. And while most probably this series that you quote involved younger minors, it doesn't actually mention their age range - and 17 is still a 'minor'. inoop was presenting an opinion based on the information in the main article and you stomped on him and effectively claimed that everything he's ever said is now suspect. How many times has it happened that an article has used weasel words to paint an unflattering picture of someone, only for a more balanced view to come out later? inoop is asking people to look at the information that was presented rather than fire off a buzzword knee-jerk response. If you have more information, then present it before judging, don't judge people on their opinions that may change with your secretly held information.
        tptacek 15y ago
        I'm quoting the publicly available sentencing memo for this case.
        lotharbot 15y ago

inoop 15y ago

You're oversimplifying. 'Posting child porn' for example turns out to be 'posting a single picture of a pubescent girl having sex with two young boys'. Note that we have not seen the picture, so the girls' age can be anywhere between 10-17 (age range according to Wikipedia article on puberty). Note also that this picture was selected for shock value, and no other child pornography was reported found on the guys' computer. The death threat was to a prominent politician who probably gets such emails on an hourly basis by cooks from all around the country. So basically what you're saying is that eighteen years is appropriate punishment for being a 4chan troll?

tptacek 15y ago
In other words, "posting child porn" for example turns out to be "posting child porn". Full disclosure: I stopped reading here and downvoted you. I've also immediately revised my (previously more measured) take on all your previous comments.
- Confusion 15y ago
  Grumpy today, are we? I would've thought someone like you would be able to go beyond "omfg, kiddie pr0n", but apparently possessing a single image that is legally child pornography (we'll probably never know what the actual contents were, so we can see if we agree with that legal judgment), that he may very well have downloaded from an a place like 4chan, where it was publicly available, is enough to morally justify sentencing someone for possession of child pornography? I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then. Irregardless of whether you agree with the above argument, completely 'revising your opinion of me' for a single argument in a single case where you are conversing via a rather incomplete/miscommunication prone medium like this, seems rather like overreacting.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    No, I'm not going to get past someone intentionally keeping and trafficking in child pornography. If anything, I'm perturbed that I've given you the impression that I'd be sanguine about it. When I read someone suggesting that the state has sentenced someone abusively, then later find a comment where that same person says posting actual images of child pornography isn't a big deal --- or, as I found even further downthread, that physically molesting a child is something that warrants a stern conversation rather than police intervention --- I'm inclined to believe that person has very little to say about sentencing that I am going to find reasonable. You are free to your own opinion about this case, and about 'inoop's comments.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then. You think wrong. There are two crucial differences between the average porn owner and the vindictive neighbor. The relevant laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, 2252A, and others[0], repeatedly use the word "knowingly". The vindictive neighbor did in fact knowingly possess and distribute a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual activity. A person who has a large stash of porn that happens to include a pic of a 17 year old that they don't know about is legally safe. In particular, the law allows a person in possession of fewer than 3 pieces of material to make an "affirmative defense"[1] if, upon discovering it, they either take reasonable steps to destroy the material or immediately report its existence to law enforcement. So the average owner of a stash of porn, upon discovering kiddie pics in his stash, can avoid all liability and culpability merely by destroying it or turning it over to the cops. The vindictive neighbor did neither. I would argue both of these legal points are also moral points -- knowing you possess child pornography, and knowingly keeping it, is a whole different offense than accidentally possessing it and then destroying it or turning it over to the cops when you realize the situation. EDIT: as to the broader point as to whether the sentence is justified, you can read the government's entire argument[2]. It describes the photo in detail on page 8; the individuals depicted are prepubescent, not "almost legal". It also describes the rest of the case; note that the sentence is not merely a child porn sentence, but includes identity theft, threats to the VP, violation of his initial release conditions, lying under oath, coaching witnesses, etc. The government explains the length of sentence starting on page 27. [0] http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476 http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?L... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense [2] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolffedssentencingmemo.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolf...
- inoop 15y ago
  See if you can get around to reading the last line though.
- AndyKelley 15y ago
  This is a bit rude. The grandparent's post is not stupid - he has a valid point.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I respectfully disagree.
- vacri 15y ago
  In the case of a 17-year-old, are you really suggesting that this person - who has the full right to have actual sex with whoever they choose (bar perhaps a guardian) pretty much all over the developed world - that a photo of this person is just as much 'child porn' as a 10-year-old? The world is shades of grey, not the black and white you're demanding.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Ardolf named this electronic image “Matt’s Kids.jpg.” See Govt. Tr. Ex. 5-2. This is an image of known child pornography identified as the “Sabban series,” where the children depicted have been identified. It has been confirmed that at the time the photographs were created, the children were minors. See Govt. Tr. Ex. 81. The “Sabban series” of child pornography was created by two individuals in Brazil, who sexually abused and photographed three children over a several-year period.
    - vacri 15y ago
      That doesn't invalidate what's been said here. What you quote is not in the main article. And while most probably this series that you quote involved younger minors, it doesn't actually mention their age range - and 17 is still a 'minor'. inoop was presenting an opinion based on the information in the main article and you stomped on him and effectively claimed that everything he's ever said is now suspect. How many times has it happened that an article has used weasel words to paint an unflattering picture of someone, only for a more balanced view to come out later? inoop is asking people to look at the information that was presented rather than fire off a buzzword knee-jerk response. If you have more information, then present it before judging, don't judge people on their opinions that may change with your secretly held information.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        I'm quoting the publicly available sentencing memo for this case.
      - lotharbot 15y ago