3 ms·

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 legal

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...

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...