5 ms·

Except DISTRIBUTING is not the only thing punished, but HAVING it too, and that is where it gets really, really silly. I think Falkinvinge wrote a article abou

by speeder 13y ago

Except DISTRIBUTING is not the only thing punished, but HAVING it too, and that is where it gets really, really silly. I think Falkinvinge wrote a article about that...

netrus 13y ago
I feel that BUYING child porn should be illegal, as it incentivises child porn production. No matter if you pay with money or by exchanging other child porn. By that rules, most people who possess child porn act illegally.
- mistercow 13y ago
  >By that rules, most people who possess child porn act illegally. Out of curiosity, do you have data to support that? If the stories are true, you can't really swing a cat in the space of Tor hidden services without hitting a public server full of CP.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Define 'exchanging' here. Let's say there is a forum/imageboard/pinterest/whatever that a bunch of people post pictures on. Does that count as 'payment' to each other?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    We need to be careful with the details here. There are a lot of scenarios that might fit your description: 1. An innocuous imageboard where someone posts child pornography, but the moderators quickly remove it. 2. A dedicate child pornography forum where people gain access to "higher levels" by posting more child pornography. 3. A peer-to-peer network, where by connecting to the network a person contributes to its operation, and where some child pornography can be found (but plenty of other files as well). I do not think we would want to see people prosecuted for downloading child pornography in the first case (maybe for uploading it); that would allow anyone to poison any forum they want. On the other hand, we clearly do want to prosecute people for the second scenario, as it pretty clearly encourages more child pornography to be produced. What about the last one? On the one hand, there is an exchange occurring -- by connecting to the network, someone is providing increased bandwidth and potentially increases the anonymity of the system, both of which likely benefit a child pornography producer. On the other hand, if we prosecute people for that, we would effectively outlaw many of the protocols in use on the Internet right now, and make criminals out of the millions of users/operators of those systems. Personally, I would make a requirement that the defendant's actions directly encourage the production of child pornography, and that the defendant knowingly undertook those actions for the purpose of obtaining child pornography. Yes, it is a high bar, but that is how the American criminal justice system is supposed to work (cannot speak for other countries) -- the bar is supposed to be high, as a protection from tyranny.
hawkharris 13y ago
Investigators are trying to shut down a black market economy that harms children, and going after the consumers in that economy is one effective strategy. Going after the producers is important, too, but as I said, they can be extraordinarily difficult to find and prosecute. There are unfortunate cases, like the one in this article, in which a person possesses child porn but may not have intentionally purchased or downloaded it. However, these are edge cases. If prosecutors had to prove that the offender purchased the material in every case, it would create a very high burden for law enforcement, enabling people to violate child protection laws that are already difficult to enforce.
- TDL 13y ago
  A quibble, the individual in the article did not have child pornography on his computer. It was a case of the police in this instance classifying pictures of his grand children as child pornography.
- greghinch 13y ago
  "There are unfortunate cases, like the one in this article, in which a person possesses child porn but may not have intentionally purchased or downloaded it. However, these are edge cases" Did you RTFA? Are you claiming that this man having pictures of his own grandchildren playing in their yard naked is "unintentional possession of child pornography"? You might as well lock up every grandparent in the country now. "going after the consumers in that economy is one effective strategy" Yes, just like how effective it's been in the "drug war"... I absolutely agree children need to be protected from being exploited, but this practice is not the answer.
  - hawkharris 13y ago
    It's a crime to possess images of children that are "lewd and lascivious." In fact, there have been many cases of people carrying images of their children or grandchildren. Convictions in such cases are extremely rare under this standard because the possession doesn't qualify as lewd and lascivious. The problem in this case is a court's interpretation of a statute, not the statute itself. And the idea behind targeting the consumers of child porn is really quite simple. If we can agree that creating sexual videos of a minor constitutes abuse, then those who purchase the tapes are supporting the abuse.
pluies 13y ago
Falkvinge, at: 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...

by speeder 13y ago

Except DISTRIBUTING is not the only thing punished, but HAVING it too, and that is where it gets really, really silly. I think Falkinvinge wrote a article about that...

netrus 13y ago

I feel that BUYING child porn should be illegal, as it incentivises child porn production. No matter if you pay with money or by exchanging other child porn. By that rules, most people who possess child porn act illegally.

mistercow 13y ago
>By that rules, most people who possess child porn act illegally. Out of curiosity, do you have data to support that? If the stories are true, you can't really swing a cat in the space of Tor hidden services without hitting a public server full of CP.
Dylan16807 13y ago
Define 'exchanging' here. Let's say there is a forum/imageboard/pinterest/whatever that a bunch of people post pictures on. Does that count as 'payment' to each other?
- betterunix 13y ago
  We need to be careful with the details here. There are a lot of scenarios that might fit your description: 1. An innocuous imageboard where someone posts child pornography, but the moderators quickly remove it. 2. A dedicate child pornography forum where people gain access to "higher levels" by posting more child pornography. 3. A peer-to-peer network, where by connecting to the network a person contributes to its operation, and where some child pornography can be found (but plenty of other files as well). I do not think we would want to see people prosecuted for downloading child pornography in the first case (maybe for uploading it); that would allow anyone to poison any forum they want. On the other hand, we clearly do want to prosecute people for the second scenario, as it pretty clearly encourages more child pornography to be produced. What about the last one? On the one hand, there is an exchange occurring -- by connecting to the network, someone is providing increased bandwidth and potentially increases the anonymity of the system, both of which likely benefit a child pornography producer. On the other hand, if we prosecute people for that, we would effectively outlaw many of the protocols in use on the Internet right now, and make criminals out of the millions of users/operators of those systems. Personally, I would make a requirement that the defendant's actions directly encourage the production of child pornography, and that the defendant knowingly undertook those actions for the purpose of obtaining child pornography. Yes, it is a high bar, but that is how the American criminal justice system is supposed to work (cannot speak for other countries) -- the bar is supposed to be high, as a protection from tyranny.

hawkharris 13y ago

Investigators are trying to shut down a black market economy that harms children, and going after the consumers in that economy is one effective strategy. Going after the producers is important, too, but as I said, they can be extraordinarily difficult to find and prosecute. There are unfortunate cases, like the one in this article, in which a person possesses child porn but may not have intentionally purchased or downloaded it. However, these are edge cases. If prosecutors had to prove that the offender purchased the material in every case, it would create a very high burden for law enforcement, enabling people to violate child protection laws that are already difficult to enforce.

TDL 13y ago
A quibble, the individual in the article did not have child pornography on his computer. It was a case of the police in this instance classifying pictures of his grand children as child pornography.
greghinch 13y ago
"There are unfortunate cases, like the one in this article, in which a person possesses child porn but may not have intentionally purchased or downloaded it. However, these are edge cases" Did you RTFA? Are you claiming that this man having pictures of his own grandchildren playing in their yard naked is "unintentional possession of child pornography"? You might as well lock up every grandparent in the country now. "going after the consumers in that economy is one effective strategy" Yes, just like how effective it's been in the "drug war"... I absolutely agree children need to be protected from being exploited, but this practice is not the answer.
- hawkharris 13y ago
  It's a crime to possess images of children that are "lewd and lascivious." In fact, there have been many cases of people carrying images of their children or grandchildren. Convictions in such cases are extremely rare under this standard because the possession doesn't qualify as lewd and lascivious. The problem in this case is a court's interpretation of a statute, not the statute itself. And the idea behind targeting the consumers of child porn is really quite simple. If we can agree that creating sexual videos of a minor constitutes abuse, then those who purchase the tapes are supporting the abuse.

pluies 13y ago

Falkvinge, at: 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...