3 ms·

You make a good point. If, in fact, illegalization of child porn does decrease the rape of children, then so be it.... But as I stated above, that path leads t

by kefka 13y ago

You make a good point. If, in fact, illegalization of child porn does decrease the rape of children, then so be it.... But as I stated above, that path leads to ignoring mens rea. Instead of "did you mean to", it is "you possessed it, too bad". This is badness to the point that I could send people CP via picture message on their phones, and turn them in. Or worst yet, a 15 yr old girl sent a naked picture to her boyfriend. And then, SHE was prosecuted for the production of child porn. And it's her own fucking body! Lastly, I do not count on politicians (of any party) being reasonable about this issue. They make crap laws, with holes and failures, and the prosecutors apply said laws the way they see fit. So, I am forced to fight for legalization of the pictures (AND prison time for the rapists).

lotharbot 13y ago
> "that path leads to ignoring mens rea" No it doesn't. "a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists" - page 14 of [0] Also note that US law allows for an "affirmative defense" [1] if you discover you possess a small amount of CP but do not intend to -- you can either destroy it, or turn it in to law enforcement, without consequence. Which means, quite simply, that the courts have not abandoned mens rea in CP law. There are some parts of the law that are stupid, but that's not one of them. [0] http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12.pdf http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12.... [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A ; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
rmc 13y ago
But as I stated above, that path leads to ignoring mens rea. Instead of "did you mean to", it is "you possessed it, too bad". This is badness to the point that I could send people CP via picture message on their phones, and turn them in. Well can't we just make it a law that it's illegal to possess and intend to possess child porn? What's so hard about that. You can often tell based on the files in a computer whether they intended to posses it. Are there dozens/hundreds of images, or only one? Are the images organised, or in the temporary browser cache? Have the images been saved over many dates or were they all created at once? The solution is better written laws, not no laws. Or worst yet, a 15 yr old girl sent a naked picture to her boyfriend. And then, SHE was prosecuted for the production of child porn. And it's her own fucking body! Oh I agree that that should not be illegal. So it's just a matter of tweaking the law to exclude that.
- kefka 13y ago
  And given the kneejerk replies about "Being Tough On Criminals" ™ leads to idiotic laws that fail in all sorts of bad ways. We have too many laws on the books (via local, state, and national) that nobody can be sure they aren't breaking SOME law, sometime. Last thing I want are more laws, that weren't tested to check validity. And frankly, I don't trust the Democrats, Republicans, Independants, Libertarians, or whomever is in Congress. The lot of them have proved, time and again, that they are incompetent.
  - rmc 13y ago
    I live in a country without this bizzar multi-level law system (and don't even know how it works). Switch to a simplier system.

by kefka 13y ago

lotharbot 13y ago

> "that path leads to ignoring mens rea" No it doesn't. "a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists" - page 14 of [0] Also note that US law allows for an "affirmative defense" [1] if you discover you possess a small amount of CP but do not intend to -- you can either destroy it, or turn it in to law enforcement, without consequence. Which means, quite simply, that the courts have not abandoned mens rea in CP law. There are some parts of the law that are stupid, but that's not one of them. [0] http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12.pdf http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12.... [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A ; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

rmc 13y ago

But as I stated above, that path leads to ignoring mens rea. Instead of "did you mean to", it is "you possessed it, too bad". This is badness to the point that I could send people CP via picture message on their phones, and turn them in. Well can't we just make it a law that it's illegal to possess and intend to possess child porn? What's so hard about that. You can often tell based on the files in a computer whether they intended to posses it. Are there dozens/hundreds of images, or only one? Are the images organised, or in the temporary browser cache? Have the images been saved over many dates or were they all created at once? The solution is better written laws, not no laws. Or worst yet, a 15 yr old girl sent a naked picture to her boyfriend. And then, SHE was prosecuted for the production of child porn. And it's her own fucking body! Oh I agree that that should not be illegal. So it's just a matter of tweaking the law to exclude that.

kefka 13y ago
And given the kneejerk replies about "Being Tough On Criminals" ™ leads to idiotic laws that fail in all sorts of bad ways. We have too many laws on the books (via local, state, and national) that nobody can be sure they aren't breaking SOME law, sometime. Last thing I want are more laws, that weren't tested to check validity. And frankly, I don't trust the Democrats, Republicans, Independants, Libertarians, or whomever is in Congress. The lot of them have proved, time and again, that they are incompetent.
- rmc 13y ago
  I live in a country without this bizzar multi-level law system (and don't even know how it works). Switch to a simplier system.