6 ms·

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

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.
  - greghinch 13y ago
    Bringing charges of child pornography against someone can be so damaging, you might as well convict them. Certainly if your employer finds out you're likely to lose your job. Friends and acquaintances will likely ostracize you, indefinitely. Do you really think just because you aren't convicted, you don't become "that guy who got accused of kiddie porn"? Of course you do. I don't think we can agree with such a blanket statement as "creating sexual videos of a minor constitutes abuse", if you're going to classify all imagery of naked children as sexual. Have you spent much time around kids? When it's hot out, it's all you can do to keep the clothes on the young ones. Likewise, parents take lots of photos and videos of their kids when they are young, often candid photos of them playing. Those are cherished memories when they grow up. You can't classify something as porn because someone somewhere might get sexually aroused by it. If there's one thing I've learned from coming across some bizarre stuff around online in the past 20 years, it's that there is someone, somewhere, who finds a way to be sexually aroused by anything and everything.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "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." Shouldn't the crime be purchasing child pornography? A person could consume child pornography without purchasing it, in secret, without contributing to its production at all. Say, someone who downloads it from a peer to peer network.
dkarl 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. That's what we thought about drugs, too, and with drugs we could be confident that someone in possession of them either produced them or supported their production by paying for them. Consumers might be able to give you information about producers, and the threat of prosecution might induce them to do so... but that too is reasoning that failed us in the drug war.
JabavuAdams 13y ago
> There are unfortunate cases, like the one in this article, n which a person possesses child porn Whoa wait. The accused did not possess child porn. How could that be your takeaway from the article? He had pictures of his grandchildren playing naked.
- dsuth 13y ago
  The fact that he parroted this opinion without reading further to ascertain the truth, is the entire problem that this article highlights. Once tarred with that brush, it's very difficult to remove the stain.
rosser 13y ago
Yeah, because enforcement efforts against the consumers of an illegal product have been so effective against the producers in the War on (some) Drugs. EDIT: And what about the kids charged with child porn possession, and potentially branded for life as sex offenders, for sexting with their boy-/girlfriend?
- pyre 13y ago
  The Florida Supreme Court decision on this was particularly funny: The fact that the underage photos were on the teenagers' computers meant that someone could hack in and distribute them. This would cause irreparable harm to the children. The way to remedy this? Uphold the conviction of teenagers as child pornographers and brand them sex offenders for life. I.e. we need to protect them from the hypothetical possible future by punishing them with an actual future that sucks just as much. Logic!
betterunix 13y ago
Your argument assumes that the majority of people who possess child pornography engaged in some kind of trade for it. I am not sure that is true anymore, given its prevalence on P2P networks and blogs, forums, etc. "If prosecutors had to prove that the offender purchased the material in every case, it would create a very high burden for law enforcement" You make this sound like a bad thing -- having a high burden of proof before we throw people in jail and restrict where they can live after their release from prison.
daxelrod 13y ago
The cases "in which a person possesses child porn but may not have intentionally purchased or downloaded it" are not cases like the one in this article. The person in this article did not possess child porn.
deelowe 13y ago
I have pictures of my son and daughter taking baths together. My daughter often takes her clothes off when she's swimming or playing in the sprinkler or, hell, just whenever she finds it funny. My son thinks it's funny to pee i the yard. Some of these instances have ended up in pictures and video. Do these make me a pedo? What about similar pictures my in laws have taken? What about pictures of my young nieces and nephews doing similar things? Additionally, have you been around kids in bathing suits? Sometimes the ones for little girls don't fit too well. There aren't exactly many curves to hold things in position at that age. What about accidental pictures of those mishaps? I bring all this up, because this is precisely the type scenario depicted in the article. This isn't a pedophile. This is a family taking pictures of normal family stuff. And let's not forget the consequences of just being charged with child porn much less a conviction. This whole government infatuation with pedophilia is absurd and nothing more than a convenient distraction to push ever more draconian agendas.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Things used to be really bad in America, back in the 80s and early 90s. In a lot of places, people simply assumed that if a child claimed they were sexually abused and gave details of the abuse, then the child must have been abused. There was little understanding that children are easily coached and eager to please adults, and police questioning methods often led children to accused people of crimes that never happened. Thousands of men and women were thrown in prison (many remain in prison) because of such dubious testimony. Even more bizarre were the later years of that hysteria, when people were accused of engaging in complex rituals involving child sex abuse, animal sacrifice (or human sacrifice), and satanic worship. It was an actual witch hunt, in an advanced, industrialized society. The moral panic cooled down once attorneys general started investigating the DAs cases, psychologists began pointing out the flawed methodology used to question the children, and people generally started realizing just how crazy things had become. Unfortunately, the hysteria is not over, it is just a bit less ridiculous than it was 20 years ago.
- maqr 13y ago
  I don't have children, but this is my understanding: > Do these make me a pedo? In the eyes of the law, likely. > What about similar pictures my in laws have taken? Yes, it's not advisable to take these kind of pictures. > What about pictures of my young nieces and nephews doing similar things? Yes, if there's nudity. > Additionally, have you been around kids in bathing suits? Not a problem. > Sometimes the ones for little girls don't fit too well. There aren't exactly many curves to hold things in position at that age. What about accidental pictures of those mishaps? Don't take pictures of kids in bathing suits. Pretty much the rule is don't be around kids and don't touch kids unless they're yours, and I think everybody knows this today. And as a global rule, don't take pictures of kids at all, but especially avoid any that could involve any type of nudity, intentional or accidental (I'd avoid bathing suit shots for sure). There might be a greater societal harm being done here, because as a male in my 20s, I have almost no interaction with children (which I think is fairly typical, at least among my peers). This could be a problem for my generation, as we're less likely to know how to handle kids; and it could be a problem for the younger generations as they don't get to interact with many adults besides their immediate family and friends. Either way, I think the societal rules about what's ok and what's not ok are reasonably well defined, if very arbitrary.
darkarmani 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. I think Johnathon Swift would agree that killing all of the children is a way more effective strategy at stopping CP. I mean investigators only care about stopping this behavior. > 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. Wouldn't that mean that it isn't an effective strategy? It's only an effective strategy, because you can easily arrest anyone -- all you have to do is email them photos that makes them a felon.

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.
- greghinch 13y ago
  Bringing charges of child pornography against someone can be so damaging, you might as well convict them. Certainly if your employer finds out you're likely to lose your job. Friends and acquaintances will likely ostracize you, indefinitely. Do you really think just because you aren't convicted, you don't become "that guy who got accused of kiddie porn"? Of course you do. I don't think we can agree with such a blanket statement as "creating sexual videos of a minor constitutes abuse", if you're going to classify all imagery of naked children as sexual. Have you spent much time around kids? When it's hot out, it's all you can do to keep the clothes on the young ones. Likewise, parents take lots of photos and videos of their kids when they are young, often candid photos of them playing. Those are cherished memories when they grow up. You can't classify something as porn because someone somewhere might get sexually aroused by it. If there's one thing I've learned from coming across some bizarre stuff around online in the past 20 years, it's that there is someone, somewhere, who finds a way to be sexually aroused by anything and everything.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "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." Shouldn't the crime be purchasing child pornography? A person could consume child pornography without purchasing it, in secret, without contributing to its production at all. Say, someone who downloads it from a peer to peer network.

dkarl 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. That's what we thought about drugs, too, and with drugs we could be confident that someone in possession of them either produced them or supported their production by paying for them. Consumers might be able to give you information about producers, and the threat of prosecution might induce them to do so... but that too is reasoning that failed us in the drug war.

JabavuAdams 13y ago

> There are unfortunate cases, like the one in this article, n which a person possesses child porn Whoa wait. The accused did not possess child porn. How could that be your takeaway from the article? He had pictures of his grandchildren playing naked.

dsuth 13y ago
The fact that he parroted this opinion without reading further to ascertain the truth, is the entire problem that this article highlights. Once tarred with that brush, it's very difficult to remove the stain.

rosser 13y ago

Yeah, because enforcement efforts against the consumers of an illegal product have been so effective against the producers in the War on (some) Drugs. EDIT: And what about the kids charged with child porn possession, and potentially branded for life as sex offenders, for sexting with their boy-/girlfriend?

pyre 13y ago
The Florida Supreme Court decision on this was particularly funny: The fact that the underage photos were on the teenagers' computers meant that someone could hack in and distribute them. This would cause irreparable harm to the children. The way to remedy this? Uphold the conviction of teenagers as child pornographers and brand them sex offenders for life. I.e. we need to protect them from the hypothetical possible future by punishing them with an actual future that sucks just as much. Logic!

betterunix 13y ago

Your argument assumes that the majority of people who possess child pornography engaged in some kind of trade for it. I am not sure that is true anymore, given its prevalence on P2P networks and blogs, forums, etc. "If prosecutors had to prove that the offender purchased the material in every case, it would create a very high burden for law enforcement" You make this sound like a bad thing -- having a high burden of proof before we throw people in jail and restrict where they can live after their release from prison.

daxelrod 13y ago

The cases "in which a person possesses child porn but may not have intentionally purchased or downloaded it" are not cases like the one in this article. The person in this article did not possess child porn.

deelowe 13y ago

I have pictures of my son and daughter taking baths together. My daughter often takes her clothes off when she's swimming or playing in the sprinkler or, hell, just whenever she finds it funny. My son thinks it's funny to pee i the yard. Some of these instances have ended up in pictures and video. Do these make me a pedo? What about similar pictures my in laws have taken? What about pictures of my young nieces and nephews doing similar things? Additionally, have you been around kids in bathing suits? Sometimes the ones for little girls don't fit too well. There aren't exactly many curves to hold things in position at that age. What about accidental pictures of those mishaps? I bring all this up, because this is precisely the type scenario depicted in the article. This isn't a pedophile. This is a family taking pictures of normal family stuff. And let's not forget the consequences of just being charged with child porn much less a conviction. This whole government infatuation with pedophilia is absurd and nothing more than a convenient distraction to push ever more draconian agendas.

betterunix 13y ago
Things used to be really bad in America, back in the 80s and early 90s. In a lot of places, people simply assumed that if a child claimed they were sexually abused and gave details of the abuse, then the child must have been abused. There was little understanding that children are easily coached and eager to please adults, and police questioning methods often led children to accused people of crimes that never happened. Thousands of men and women were thrown in prison (many remain in prison) because of such dubious testimony. Even more bizarre were the later years of that hysteria, when people were accused of engaging in complex rituals involving child sex abuse, animal sacrifice (or human sacrifice), and satanic worship. It was an actual witch hunt, in an advanced, industrialized society. The moral panic cooled down once attorneys general started investigating the DAs cases, psychologists began pointing out the flawed methodology used to question the children, and people generally started realizing just how crazy things had become. Unfortunately, the hysteria is not over, it is just a bit less ridiculous than it was 20 years ago.
maqr 13y ago
I don't have children, but this is my understanding: > Do these make me a pedo? In the eyes of the law, likely. > What about similar pictures my in laws have taken? Yes, it's not advisable to take these kind of pictures. > What about pictures of my young nieces and nephews doing similar things? Yes, if there's nudity. > Additionally, have you been around kids in bathing suits? Not a problem. > Sometimes the ones for little girls don't fit too well. There aren't exactly many curves to hold things in position at that age. What about accidental pictures of those mishaps? Don't take pictures of kids in bathing suits. Pretty much the rule is don't be around kids and don't touch kids unless they're yours, and I think everybody knows this today. And as a global rule, don't take pictures of kids at all, but especially avoid any that could involve any type of nudity, intentional or accidental (I'd avoid bathing suit shots for sure). There might be a greater societal harm being done here, because as a male in my 20s, I have almost no interaction with children (which I think is fairly typical, at least among my peers). This could be a problem for my generation, as we're less likely to know how to handle kids; and it could be a problem for the younger generations as they don't get to interact with many adults besides their immediate family and friends. Either way, I think the societal rules about what's ok and what's not ok are reasonably well defined, if very arbitrary.

darkarmani 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. I think Johnathon Swift would agree that killing all of the children is a way more effective strategy at stopping CP. I mean investigators only care about stopping this behavior. > 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. Wouldn't that mean that it isn't an effective strategy? It's only an effective strategy, because you can easily arrest anyone -- all you have to do is email them photos that makes them a felon.