5 ms·

I still find it incredible that merely possessing some files is enough to get you arrested and possibly end your career. Weirder still, it seems to be ok to ha

by clarry 13y ago

I still find it incredible that merely possessing some files is enough to get you arrested and possibly end your career. Weirder still, it seems to be ok to have just about all other sorts of horrific photos depicting, say, brutal violence..

corin_ 13y ago
I could be wrong, but I think there's far less of a market for producing photos of brutal violence than there is for producing photos of illegal pornography - the law is really about trying to kill the market, rather than it actually mattering that they are looking at the photos (really the only reason to punish people for looking at them is that by stopping these people you can help take away the incentive for people to produce them in the first place). Edit: In response to tomp's comment about how cartoon images can be illegal... yeah, I don't understand that. Maybe there's scientific evidence that paedophiles who look at cartoon images are more likely to become sex offenders than those who avoid all pornography? Even then, not sure it's the right approach... but who knows.
- e40 13y ago
  Maybe there's scientific evidence that paedophiles who look at cartoon images are more likely to become sex offenders than those who avoid all pornography? Even then, not sure it's the right approach... but who knows. Or maybe there's evidence that looking at any type of pornography decreases illegal behavior and the people making the laws don't give a crap about real data?[1] [1] http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-continues/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- slashdotaccount 13y ago
  But how can be the market destroyed when there is a demand. We should understand that there are those people who are being attracted to minors (we call them pedophiles), call this a disease, or whatever, but these people exist, and the vast majority of them are normal people in the real life. We, normal people (or what is normal?), are attracted to other adult people, but it doesn't make us rapers just because we imagine having sex with somebody. And it doesn't make those people child-molesters if they are only imagining it. And we are allowed to watch porn. If we want to kill the CP market (so the criminals stop shooting new CP material) let's give those people the possibility to watch it legally (because if not they are going to do it illegally). Let's collect all those already made illegal materials and give it to them for free (like the medical marijuana) so they can somewhat fulfill their sexual desires without harming anybody.
  - clarry 13y ago
    And when there's demand, I just don't see how outlawing possession would end that demand. Think guns. Does outlawing the possession of guns put and end to the black market for illegal guns? On the contrary I think!
tomp 13y ago
What's worse, it doesn't actually need to be child pornography. Even computer-generated/digitally modified images/videos where actors resemble children, and even drawings that can be interpreted as children having sex, are illegal!
- astrodust 13y ago
  There need to be prohibitions that don't discriminate on the basis of age. If someone's being abused, against their will, that's the same thing. It doesn't matter if they've crossed the magical line where they're an adult. If you're going to make a stand, at least make a principled one ("We're trying to prevent abuse") and not one on emotional basis ("Think of the children!")
  - doreo 13y ago
    There is a bill to ban the possession of adult rape pornography currently being introduced into law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Courts_Bill_2013%E2%80%9314 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Courts_Bi...)
  - drdaeman 13y ago
    It's age-based because it's defined that kids just can't (legally) consent, so lack of consent can be determined. You can't determine whenever characters on picture are consenting or not (or pretending they're not consenting but actually do). Especially if they're drawings that bear no resemblance to any real persons. So, while your suggestion is logically right by its nature, it just can't work in reality. Well, unless laws mandate that every porn-looking picture out there must be accompanied with a signed written consent proof. But that's not really possible, too.
    - doreo 13y ago
      For adult porn the legal system doesn't really care if they are consenting or real. A special needs teacher called Jane Longhurst was murdered by a guy who enjoyed violent pornography, so now mere depictions of particularly dangerous (and soon non-consensual) sex are made illegal. You could literally have signed written consent proof but if it looks like rape then it lands you in legal trouble because it might turn you into a rapist murderer.
__alexs 13y ago
Our complete inability to even suggest trying to think rationally about these issues is much worse than that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harr...
rjzzleep 13y ago
similar things just happened in germany. > Edathy announced his resignation from parliament "for health reasons" on February 7, 2014. Just two days after his resignation went public, his home and offices were searched by authorities; media outlets asserted that the searches were made on allegations of possession of child pornography.[] 14 February 2014, Hans-Peter Friedrich, resigned from the ruling CDU–SPD grand coalition government reacting to imminent legal investigations into incidents during his tenure as Federal Minister of the Interior. Friedrich was accused of betraying state secrets about legal investigations to SPD party heads during the coalition negotiations after the federal elections in 2013 about information showing Edathy's link to a globally-operating child pornography syndicate and plans to take up an investigation against Edathy on suspicion of possessing such material. "The SPD's top leaders, who received the intelligence information from Friedrich, said they have not given any tip-off to Edathy and they kept the information secret."[] They are Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who is also Merkel's deputy; Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier; and the party's parliamentary leader, Thomas Oppermann. what i didn't know until recently was that edathy was overseeing an investigation on the verfassungschutz (a german intelligence gathering institution to fight threats concerning democratic order etc.) [2] essentially a few police informants essentially ran a terrorism cell targeted at immigrants. when investigations happened a lot of the official records were destroyed. [3] according to the news edathy bought pictures of naked children. he might have, but who knows. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Edathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Edathy [2] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bundesamt+f%c3%bcr+Verfassungsschutz http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bundesamt+f%c3%bcr... [3] http://www.news.ch/Behoerde+vernichtet+Akten+von+Zwickauer+Terrorzelle/547829/detail.htm http://www.news.ch/Behoerde+vernichtet+Akten+von+Zwickauer+T...
aegiso 13y ago
It's less incredible once you come to terms with the fact that like so much "zero-tolerance" emotionally charged legislation its role is to be a political gun that doesn't require the ammunition of justice or reason to function. "But he's a child molester!" is all you need, logic and facts be damned. What's worse, is it's impossible to get rid of these laws because anyone who tries can easily be branded as a <insert evil demographic> sympathizer. As unsurprising as it is that these laws exist and continue to do so, it's still utterly horrifying when you realize it's combined with indiscriminate data hoovering for later use. I don't think there's any solution but to stop reacting emotionally to terms like "child-molester", "murderer" and "terrorist" and instead think critically about the deeper reasons behind why people do what they do. I'm doing my part and I encourage anyone reading this to do the same.
- DaleHarries1 13y ago
  I view the way paedophiles are treated today as the way gay men were treated roughly 50 - 100 years ago. Think about it in chronological order: 1. Gay people are not mentioned and thrown in jail if discovered. 2. Decriminalised, society begins to learn what they are, huge public backlash, declared mental illness. 3. Science catches up, stops declaring it a mental issue. 4. Society catches up. 5. Law catches up. 6. Gay people == Straight people Now, of course paedophiles bring their own set of problems but think about this timetable: 1. Paedophiles not mentioned and thrown in jail. 2. Society begins to learn what they are, huge backlash, declared mental illness. 3. Science catches up, discovers why paedophiles are the way they are and comes up with treatments. 4. Society catches up, focus on treatment and feels pity rather than contempt. 5. Law catches up. 6. Paedophiles == Normal people (Obviously in need of treatment though) I have this feeling that in 100 years we will look back and think "Jesus Christ did we do that to these poor people, they needed treatment not throwing in jail". That's even before you ask questions about the current systems ability to protect children. (I don't believe it does at all) Of course if you made this statement outside of an intelligent forum like hacker news you would be accused of being Gary Giltter's pimp! IMHO that just shows how emotionally unintelligent we are to deal with this issue. Give it 20 - 30 years and we'll be in a far more advanced place.
  - 13y ago
austerity 13y ago
True. However this specific person being part of the problem makes me have a lot less sympathy for them.

by clarry 13y ago

corin_ 13y ago

I could be wrong, but I think there's far less of a market for producing photos of brutal violence than there is for producing photos of illegal pornography - the law is really about trying to kill the market, rather than it actually mattering that they are looking at the photos (really the only reason to punish people for looking at them is that by stopping these people you can help take away the incentive for people to produce them in the first place). Edit: In response to tomp's comment about how cartoon images can be illegal... yeah, I don't understand that. Maybe there's scientific evidence that paedophiles who look at cartoon images are more likely to become sex offenders than those who avoid all pornography? Even then, not sure it's the right approach... but who knows.

e40 13y ago
Maybe there's scientific evidence that paedophiles who look at cartoon images are more likely to become sex offenders than those who avoid all pornography? Even then, not sure it's the right approach... but who knows. Or maybe there's evidence that looking at any type of pornography decreases illegal behavior and the people making the laws don't give a crap about real data?[1] [1] http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-continues/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
slashdotaccount 13y ago
But how can be the market destroyed when there is a demand. We should understand that there are those people who are being attracted to minors (we call them pedophiles), call this a disease, or whatever, but these people exist, and the vast majority of them are normal people in the real life. We, normal people (or what is normal?), are attracted to other adult people, but it doesn't make us rapers just because we imagine having sex with somebody. And it doesn't make those people child-molesters if they are only imagining it. And we are allowed to watch porn. If we want to kill the CP market (so the criminals stop shooting new CP material) let's give those people the possibility to watch it legally (because if not they are going to do it illegally). Let's collect all those already made illegal materials and give it to them for free (like the medical marijuana) so they can somewhat fulfill their sexual desires without harming anybody.
- clarry 13y ago
  And when there's demand, I just don't see how outlawing possession would end that demand. Think guns. Does outlawing the possession of guns put and end to the black market for illegal guns? On the contrary I think!

tomp 13y ago

What's worse, it doesn't actually need to be child pornography. Even computer-generated/digitally modified images/videos where actors resemble children, and even drawings that can be interpreted as children having sex, are illegal!

astrodust 13y ago
There need to be prohibitions that don't discriminate on the basis of age. If someone's being abused, against their will, that's the same thing. It doesn't matter if they've crossed the magical line where they're an adult. If you're going to make a stand, at least make a principled one ("We're trying to prevent abuse") and not one on emotional basis ("Think of the children!")
- doreo 13y ago
  There is a bill to ban the possession of adult rape pornography currently being introduced into law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Courts_Bill_2013%E2%80%9314 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Courts_Bi...)
- drdaeman 13y ago
  It's age-based because it's defined that kids just can't (legally) consent, so lack of consent can be determined. You can't determine whenever characters on picture are consenting or not (or pretending they're not consenting but actually do). Especially if they're drawings that bear no resemblance to any real persons. So, while your suggestion is logically right by its nature, it just can't work in reality. Well, unless laws mandate that every porn-looking picture out there must be accompanied with a signed written consent proof. But that's not really possible, too.
  - doreo 13y ago
    For adult porn the legal system doesn't really care if they are consenting or real. A special needs teacher called Jane Longhurst was murdered by a guy who enjoyed violent pornography, so now mere depictions of particularly dangerous (and soon non-consensual) sex are made illegal. You could literally have signed written consent proof but if it looks like rape then it lands you in legal trouble because it might turn you into a rapist murderer.

__alexs 13y ago

Our complete inability to even suggest trying to think rationally about these issues is much worse than that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harr...

rjzzleep 13y ago

similar things just happened in germany. > Edathy announced his resignation from parliament "for health reasons" on February 7, 2014. Just two days after his resignation went public, his home and offices were searched by authorities; media outlets asserted that the searches were made on allegations of possession of child pornography.[] 14 February 2014, Hans-Peter Friedrich, resigned from the ruling CDU–SPD grand coalition government reacting to imminent legal investigations into incidents during his tenure as Federal Minister of the Interior. Friedrich was accused of betraying state secrets about legal investigations to SPD party heads during the coalition negotiations after the federal elections in 2013 about information showing Edathy's link to a globally-operating child pornography syndicate and plans to take up an investigation against Edathy on suspicion of possessing such material. "The SPD's top leaders, who received the intelligence information from Friedrich, said they have not given any tip-off to Edathy and they kept the information secret."[] They are Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who is also Merkel's deputy; Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier; and the party's parliamentary leader, Thomas Oppermann. what i didn't know until recently was that edathy was overseeing an investigation on the verfassungschutz (a german intelligence gathering institution to fight threats concerning democratic order etc.) [2] essentially a few police informants essentially ran a terrorism cell targeted at immigrants. when investigations happened a lot of the official records were destroyed. [3] according to the news edathy bought pictures of naked children. he might have, but who knows. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Edathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Edathy [2] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bundesamt+f%c3%bcr+Verfassungsschutz http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bundesamt+f%c3%bcr... [3] http://www.news.ch/Behoerde+vernichtet+Akten+von+Zwickauer+Terrorzelle/547829/detail.htm http://www.news.ch/Behoerde+vernichtet+Akten+von+Zwickauer+T...

aegiso 13y ago

It's less incredible once you come to terms with the fact that like so much "zero-tolerance" emotionally charged legislation its role is to be a political gun that doesn't require the ammunition of justice or reason to function. "But he's a child molester!" is all you need, logic and facts be damned. What's worse, is it's impossible to get rid of these laws because anyone who tries can easily be branded as a <insert evil demographic> sympathizer. As unsurprising as it is that these laws exist and continue to do so, it's still utterly horrifying when you realize it's combined with indiscriminate data hoovering for later use. I don't think there's any solution but to stop reacting emotionally to terms like "child-molester", "murderer" and "terrorist" and instead think critically about the deeper reasons behind why people do what they do. I'm doing my part and I encourage anyone reading this to do the same.

DaleHarries1 13y ago
I view the way paedophiles are treated today as the way gay men were treated roughly 50 - 100 years ago. Think about it in chronological order: 1. Gay people are not mentioned and thrown in jail if discovered. 2. Decriminalised, society begins to learn what they are, huge public backlash, declared mental illness. 3. Science catches up, stops declaring it a mental issue. 4. Society catches up. 5. Law catches up. 6. Gay people == Straight people Now, of course paedophiles bring their own set of problems but think about this timetable: 1. Paedophiles not mentioned and thrown in jail. 2. Society begins to learn what they are, huge backlash, declared mental illness. 3. Science catches up, discovers why paedophiles are the way they are and comes up with treatments. 4. Society catches up, focus on treatment and feels pity rather than contempt. 5. Law catches up. 6. Paedophiles == Normal people (Obviously in need of treatment though) I have this feeling that in 100 years we will look back and think "Jesus Christ did we do that to these poor people, they needed treatment not throwing in jail". That's even before you ask questions about the current systems ability to protect children. (I don't believe it does at all) Of course if you made this statement outside of an intelligent forum like hacker news you would be accused of being Gary Giltter's pimp! IMHO that just shows how emotionally unintelligent we are to deal with this issue. Give it 20 - 30 years and we'll be in a far more advanced place.
- 13y ago

austerity 13y ago

True. However this specific person being part of the problem makes me have a lot less sympathy for them.