3 ms·
No, they didn't. They still don't. Not having a victim on the other side of the case (possession of child porn, not production of child porn) gives judges an ea
by pessimizer 3y ago
No, they didn't. They still don't. Not having a victim on the other side of the case (possession of child porn, not production of child porn) gives judges an easy excuse (and no opposition) to sympathizing with the accused and suspending the sentence.
Child porn is just leverage to pry. We used to care as much about sending information about birth control through the mail. And with the modern movement to sexualize children as soon as possible, they might have to use another excuse in 20 years. "Terrorism" will always work, because it doesn't mean anything.
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoI believe this is the case, as unfortunate as it is. The loudness of their voices in "protecting the children" when politicians are introducing new communications surveillance measures, with no mention of local, boots-on-the-ground, child protection services funding increases, just screams to me that they care about surveillance a lot and about protecting children not at all.
- didntcheck 3y agoIn that way the government represents the people. For every 9 people you meet screeching about how much they want to hunt a pedo and torture them, there's 1 person talking about actually helping children experiencing abuse (which is not always sexual, to the former group's disappointment)
- erik_seaberg 3y agoThese tactics have been called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp....