9 ms·

>for example if you take a photo of a guy raping a minor girl in a park and hand to the police, you can still be prosecuted for taking the photo well, that is

by 3825 14y ago

>for example if you take a photo of a guy raping a minor girl in a park and hand to the police, you can still be prosecuted for taking the photo well, that is just wrong. what if it is an unmonitored security camera?

gambiting 14y ago
In the US recording child pornography usually carries a larger penalty than raping a child. Imagine walking through the park at night with Google Glasses on, recording what you see. And there is a rape going on - congratulations, if you go and report it to the police, you "might" be put in jail for longer than the rapist. Unlikely? Maybe - but it's completely within the law.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Please stop calling it child pornography. These are images of child sexual abuse. Actually, I'd prefer it if people stopped spreading hateful lies about how acceptable images of child sexual abuse are, and how this abuse causes no harm, and how it should be fine for people to make and possess and distribute these images of abuse; and if they stopped spreading FUD about how taking a photo of a man raping a child to give to the police would mean you'd be arrested, but I realise that apologists for paedophilia[1] are very vocal on the Internet. > In the US recording child pornography usually carries a larger penalty than raping a child. Do you have any citations for this? Specifically, a crime where a person has been given a longer sentence for recording images of child sexual abuse when that did not also involve carrying out the child sexual abuse? [1] don't fucking dare try to start with the ephebophila nonsense.
  - scarmig 14y ago
    Afraid I'm not following you. What's the issue with using "child pornography" to denote "images of child sexual abuse"? It's not like child pornography has undergone some fluffy rebranding that makes people go "oh yeah that's cool!" If anything, "child pornography" will probably set off a quicker, harsher reaction than "images of child sexual abuse." The latter is almost clinical in its approach: people will spend a couple seconds parsing it to try to figure out what it means, while child pornography evokes a very visceral, gut reaction. Using your preferred phrasing seems weird enough that, if not for your context, I might assume the user was trying to create a subcategory of child pornography that's real "child sexual abuse," implicitly also creating a complementary subcategory of some kind of legitimate child pornography that's somehow not abusive. Obviously not what you're doing, so what's the motivation, here?
  - gambiting 14y ago
    There you go, I am not making shit up as I go, but read articles in other places on the Internet too: http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/ http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-mus... The abuse carries harm. The images however,do not. If they did, how would it be legal(as it is) for me to download a video of two guys killing another one, stabbing him in the eyes and the throat with a screwdriver? This is also a video of a crime, yet one is legal and the other is not. I tend to agree with the article I linked here - it's because we(as a society) would rather make the very existence of information illegal, because it does not go well with our morals, and not because it's a logical thing to do. Ban on cp is actively(as in - right now) stopping predators and criminals from being caught.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      Child porn is illegal because the desire for possession creates a market demand, and that demand gives reason for people to commit the abuse crime in the future. If nobody consumed child porn, there would be no reason to produce it – at least that is the theory. I'm not sure how we got to the point that possession is demonized more than the act though, as you are right, mere possession cannot really hurt anyone, though there is probably an argument to be made about the embarrassment one feels from being watched by strangers.
      - betterunix 14y ago
        "Child porn is illegal because the desire for possession creates a market demand, and that demand gives reason for people to commit the abuse crime in the future" That was the dubious argument made decades ago, when the only way to obtain pornography of any kind was to purchase it. In today's world, it is far more common for people to download child pornography without ever having paid for it. People are arrested for downloading such videos from peer to peer file sharing networks all the time, almost always without any evidence that they paid for it, knew who made it, or were in any way encouraging its production. Just having child pornography in your browser cache is sufficient to be charged in New York. It is clear at this point that the purpose of child pornography law is not to protect children, but to punish adults regardless of whether children are involved. It is illegal to possess cartoon depictions of child pornography, even if you possess no other imagery: http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornogra... http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/06/27/u-s-citizen-arrested-in-canada-for-manga-on-laptop-faces-minim/ http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/06/27/u-s-citizen-arreste... Like most laws that increase police power, this has gotten completely out of control and put the public in danger.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    >Please stop calling it child pornography. These are images of child sexual abuse. Under the law, what is defined as "child pornography" extends far, far beyond actual images of child sexual abuse. A teenage girl taking a nude picture of herself in a suggestive pose, for example, is not a child being sexually abused. But the law still considers that child pornography. >and how this abuse causes no harm, and how it should be fine for people to make and possess and distribute these images of abuse Can you show me one example of someone on HN (with an un-hellbanned account) claiming that child sexual abuse is harmless, or that producing non-simulated images depicting sexual abuse is fine?
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    >don't fucking dare try to start with the ephebophila nonsense. You sound like someone who spends a lot of time in the SRS bubble on reddit (I see this argument from them all the time). In that same vein I would just like to point out that its rather ironic that people who spend their time analyzing social issues to death in attempt to tease out nuance and increase understanding of complex issues (e.g. I've only ever heard the term cisgendered on reddit) would balk at an increased understanding of human sexual deviances. The fact is ephebophilia is clinically and socially distinct from pedophilia. Anyone who refuses to recognize the distinction is doing so for purely political reasons. Someone who would chastise one for using the term ephebophilia, while in the next sentence shove the term cisgendered down another's throat, seems absurdly self-serving.
    - GHFigs 14y ago
      If you want to complain about Reddit, could you please do it on Reddit?
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago
        I don't really see it as a complaint about reddit. I'm complaining about a sentiment that he seems to be supporting, which I've only ever seen on reddit. My response was informed by the assumed connection to reddit.
  - pekk 14y ago
    From primary school on, you must be aware that if you bring a problem to authorities like teachers or law enforcement, and you can be implicated in any way, that you are likely to personally pay for that even with the best intentions on your part
- gamblor956 14y ago
  Not only is that unlikely, but it's also false because the recording is inadvertent (and thus, the intent element of the criminal statute cannot be satisfied). However, the intent element would be satisfied if you keep the recording without informing the police and giving them the recording ASAP. Furthermore, you would not be subject to a longer sentence than the original perpetrator, since the original perpetrator will almost certainly be subject to civil commitment statutes for sexual offenders that keep imprisoned indefinitely beyond his original sentence (Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder, and ephebophilia is also considered a mental disorder to a lesser extent, by the DSM 4.) Source: I am a former criminal defense lawyer.
  - will_brown 14y ago
    >(and thus, the intent element of the criminal statute cannot be satisfied). >Source: I am a former criminal defense lawyer. You should know that statutory rape and child pornography criminal charges are unique in criminal law, in that they are strict liability crimes, and they do not require criminal intent. In other words it is not enough that for a Defendant to claim lack of intent and prove the minor produced a ID showing they were 18 before having sex and/or before being photographed/filmed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29
    - snowwrestler 14y ago
      That is not the same thing as inadvertently recording a crime in a public place, which is what the grandparent was describing.
      - will_brown 14y ago
        It is not the same thing but it demonstrates the same point that under these charges Criminal Intent does not need to be proved, unlike most any other criminal charge. I suppose I did not need to use a different hypothetical, but I thought it would demonstrate the point about intent, bc in my hypothetical the Defendant could not have had intent when a minor produces an ID that says 18, ie. how can you intend to have sex with a minor if you believe the individual is 18? You can not intend it, at least legally and I specifically used a hypothetical that creates some culpability on the minor, producing a fake ID, but even that is not a defense because that only goes to intent, the actual crime still occurred. Back to the original hypothetical, keep in mind we are not talking about recording a crime in a public place, it is much more specific we are talking about recording statutory rape in a public place - there is no defense regarding intent bc it is a strict liability crime. Moreover, it does not matter it was inadvertent, a mistake or anything else if the video exists and you recorded your intent, or lack thereof, is not a valid defense to a strict liability crimes.

by 3825 14y ago

gambiting 14y ago

In the US recording child pornography usually carries a larger penalty than raping a child. Imagine walking through the park at night with Google Glasses on, recording what you see. And there is a rape going on - congratulations, if you go and report it to the police, you "might" be put in jail for longer than the rapist. Unlikely? Maybe - but it's completely within the law.

DanBC 14y ago
Please stop calling it child pornography. These are images of child sexual abuse. Actually, I'd prefer it if people stopped spreading hateful lies about how acceptable images of child sexual abuse are, and how this abuse causes no harm, and how it should be fine for people to make and possess and distribute these images of abuse; and if they stopped spreading FUD about how taking a photo of a man raping a child to give to the police would mean you'd be arrested, but I realise that apologists for paedophilia[1] are very vocal on the Internet. > In the US recording child pornography usually carries a larger penalty than raping a child. Do you have any citations for this? Specifically, a crime where a person has been given a longer sentence for recording images of child sexual abuse when that did not also involve carrying out the child sexual abuse? [1] don't fucking dare try to start with the ephebophila nonsense.
- scarmig 14y ago
  Afraid I'm not following you. What's the issue with using "child pornography" to denote "images of child sexual abuse"? It's not like child pornography has undergone some fluffy rebranding that makes people go "oh yeah that's cool!" If anything, "child pornography" will probably set off a quicker, harsher reaction than "images of child sexual abuse." The latter is almost clinical in its approach: people will spend a couple seconds parsing it to try to figure out what it means, while child pornography evokes a very visceral, gut reaction. Using your preferred phrasing seems weird enough that, if not for your context, I might assume the user was trying to create a subcategory of child pornography that's real "child sexual abuse," implicitly also creating a complementary subcategory of some kind of legitimate child pornography that's somehow not abusive. Obviously not what you're doing, so what's the motivation, here?
- gambiting 14y ago
  There you go, I am not making shit up as I go, but read articles in other places on the Internet too: http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/ http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-mus... The abuse carries harm. The images however,do not. If they did, how would it be legal(as it is) for me to download a video of two guys killing another one, stabbing him in the eyes and the throat with a screwdriver? This is also a video of a crime, yet one is legal and the other is not. I tend to agree with the article I linked here - it's because we(as a society) would rather make the very existence of information illegal, because it does not go well with our morals, and not because it's a logical thing to do. Ban on cp is actively(as in - right now) stopping predators and criminals from being caught.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    Child porn is illegal because the desire for possession creates a market demand, and that demand gives reason for people to commit the abuse crime in the future. If nobody consumed child porn, there would be no reason to produce it – at least that is the theory. I'm not sure how we got to the point that possession is demonized more than the act though, as you are right, mere possession cannot really hurt anyone, though there is probably an argument to be made about the embarrassment one feels from being watched by strangers.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      "Child porn is illegal because the desire for possession creates a market demand, and that demand gives reason for people to commit the abuse crime in the future" That was the dubious argument made decades ago, when the only way to obtain pornography of any kind was to purchase it. In today's world, it is far more common for people to download child pornography without ever having paid for it. People are arrested for downloading such videos from peer to peer file sharing networks all the time, almost always without any evidence that they paid for it, knew who made it, or were in any way encouraging its production. Just having child pornography in your browser cache is sufficient to be charged in New York. It is clear at this point that the purpose of child pornography law is not to protect children, but to punish adults regardless of whether children are involved. It is illegal to possess cartoon depictions of child pornography, even if you possess no other imagery: http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornogra... http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/06/27/u-s-citizen-arrested-in-canada-for-manga-on-laptop-faces-minim/ http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/06/27/u-s-citizen-arreste... Like most laws that increase police power, this has gotten completely out of control and put the public in danger.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >Please stop calling it child pornography. These are images of child sexual abuse. Under the law, what is defined as "child pornography" extends far, far beyond actual images of child sexual abuse. A teenage girl taking a nude picture of herself in a suggestive pose, for example, is not a child being sexually abused. But the law still considers that child pornography. >and how this abuse causes no harm, and how it should be fine for people to make and possess and distribute these images of abuse Can you show me one example of someone on HN (with an un-hellbanned account) claiming that child sexual abuse is harmless, or that producing non-simulated images depicting sexual abuse is fine?
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  >don't fucking dare try to start with the ephebophila nonsense. You sound like someone who spends a lot of time in the SRS bubble on reddit (I see this argument from them all the time). In that same vein I would just like to point out that its rather ironic that people who spend their time analyzing social issues to death in attempt to tease out nuance and increase understanding of complex issues (e.g. I've only ever heard the term cisgendered on reddit) would balk at an increased understanding of human sexual deviances. The fact is ephebophilia is clinically and socially distinct from pedophilia. Anyone who refuses to recognize the distinction is doing so for purely political reasons. Someone who would chastise one for using the term ephebophilia, while in the next sentence shove the term cisgendered down another's throat, seems absurdly self-serving.
  - GHFigs 14y ago
    If you want to complain about Reddit, could you please do it on Reddit?
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      I don't really see it as a complaint about reddit. I'm complaining about a sentiment that he seems to be supporting, which I've only ever seen on reddit. My response was informed by the assumed connection to reddit.
- pekk 14y ago
  From primary school on, you must be aware that if you bring a problem to authorities like teachers or law enforcement, and you can be implicated in any way, that you are likely to personally pay for that even with the best intentions on your part
gamblor956 14y ago
Not only is that unlikely, but it's also false because the recording is inadvertent (and thus, the intent element of the criminal statute cannot be satisfied). However, the intent element would be satisfied if you keep the recording without informing the police and giving them the recording ASAP. Furthermore, you would not be subject to a longer sentence than the original perpetrator, since the original perpetrator will almost certainly be subject to civil commitment statutes for sexual offenders that keep imprisoned indefinitely beyond his original sentence (Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder, and ephebophilia is also considered a mental disorder to a lesser extent, by the DSM 4.) Source: I am a former criminal defense lawyer.
- will_brown 14y ago
  >(and thus, the intent element of the criminal statute cannot be satisfied). >Source: I am a former criminal defense lawyer. You should know that statutory rape and child pornography criminal charges are unique in criminal law, in that they are strict liability crimes, and they do not require criminal intent. In other words it is not enough that for a Defendant to claim lack of intent and prove the minor produced a ID showing they were 18 before having sex and/or before being photographed/filmed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    That is not the same thing as inadvertently recording a crime in a public place, which is what the grandparent was describing.
    - will_brown 14y ago
      It is not the same thing but it demonstrates the same point that under these charges Criminal Intent does not need to be proved, unlike most any other criminal charge. I suppose I did not need to use a different hypothetical, but I thought it would demonstrate the point about intent, bc in my hypothetical the Defendant could not have had intent when a minor produces an ID that says 18, ie. how can you intend to have sex with a minor if you believe the individual is 18? You can not intend it, at least legally and I specifically used a hypothetical that creates some culpability on the minor, producing a fake ID, but even that is not a defense because that only goes to intent, the actual crime still occurred. Back to the original hypothetical, keep in mind we are not talking about recording a crime in a public place, it is much more specific we are talking about recording statutory rape in a public place - there is no defense regarding intent bc it is a strict liability crime. Moreover, it does not matter it was inadvertent, a mistake or anything else if the video exists and you recorded your intent, or lack thereof, is not a valid defense to a strict liability crimes.