4 ms·

"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. Ho

"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.

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.