4 ms·

FWIW, simulated child porn laws aren't just about "thought crimes". They're motivated by the fact that defendants in cases involving real child porn sometimes c

by eurleif 13y ago

FWIW, simulated child porn laws aren't just about "thought crimes". They're motivated by the fact that defendants in cases involving real child porn sometimes claim the child porn is simulated, and it can be difficult and expensive to prove that false.

lowboy 13y ago
Hmm. That is a tricky area. On the one hand, the presumption of innocence should be maintained. OTOH, any video could be simulated.
tbrownaw 13y ago
Which is why making pictures illegal is rather screwy. Make causing actual harm to an actual child illegal. Make profiting from it (eg selling pictures of said actual harm) illegal. Make possessing pictures not illegal, but something that will get you asked where the pictures came from. . But really it is about thoughtcrime. Society (or at least politicians) have decided that having certain interests/desires is wrong (or rather, that those people are creepy and dangerous and can't possibly have the self-control to not fully act on said thoughts). And so anything that may indicate someone having said thoughts is made illegal, even if it doesn't hurt anyone, and even if it indicate that they know not to act in harmful ways.
- eurleif 13y ago
  >Make profiting from it (eg selling pictures of said actual harm) illegal. Can't someone accused of selling child porn claim it's fake just as easily as someone simply accused of possessing it?
  - tbrownaw 13y ago
    Sure, and the supposedly-stolen things I'm selling really just fell off the back of a truck. I would think that sellers having ties to producers would have a harder time arguing they were selling fakes. And if they don't have those ties -- if they're not supporting the people causing the harm -- then their actions are only illegal for the sake of simplifying the prosecution's work. Which means their likely being able to get off at trial is less of an issue.
Dylan16807 13y ago
That something can make law enforcement's job harder, even though it's otherwise completely innocuous* , is a terrible reason for outlawing. Especially considering that whole first amendment thing. * In this scenario it's something creepy but harmless. In another it might be fake guns or fake drugs * * * * Consider the implications of outlawing bags of sugar.

by eurleif 13y ago

lowboy 13y ago

Hmm. That is a tricky area. On the one hand, the presumption of innocence should be maintained. OTOH, any video could be simulated.

tbrownaw 13y ago

Which is why making pictures illegal is rather screwy. Make causing actual harm to an actual child illegal. Make profiting from it (eg selling pictures of said actual harm) illegal. Make possessing pictures not illegal, but something that will get you asked where the pictures came from. . But really it is about thoughtcrime. Society (or at least politicians) have decided that having certain interests/desires is wrong (or rather, that those people are creepy and dangerous and can't possibly have the self-control to not fully act on said thoughts). And so anything that may indicate someone having said thoughts is made illegal, even if it doesn't hurt anyone, and even if it indicate that they know not to act in harmful ways.

eurleif 13y ago
>Make profiting from it (eg selling pictures of said actual harm) illegal. Can't someone accused of selling child porn claim it's fake just as easily as someone simply accused of possessing it?
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  Sure, and the supposedly-stolen things I'm selling really just fell off the back of a truck. I would think that sellers having ties to producers would have a harder time arguing they were selling fakes. And if they don't have those ties -- if they're not supporting the people causing the harm -- then their actions are only illegal for the sake of simplifying the prosecution's work. Which means their likely being able to get off at trial is less of an issue.

Dylan16807 13y ago

That something can make law enforcement's job harder, even though it's otherwise completely innocuous* , is a terrible reason for outlawing. Especially considering that whole first amendment thing. * In this scenario it's something creepy but harmless. In another it might be fake guns or fake drugs * * * * Consider the implications of outlawing bags of sugar.