Agreed.

I'm against it.

However, lets focus more on putting dangerous perverts away and not RELEASING them out to offend AGAIN.

Our society still hasn't figured THAT one out.

In SPITE of all the known offenders we've released who have gone on to RE-offend and even MURDER.

And we expect to be able to figure out if I'm a pervert for having pics of my two boys naked in the tub ?

Yeah RIGHT.

Fuck people are stupid.

I need my own fuckin' planet :-)

Child Pornography Law Wackiness #456,623:

The large majority of laws passed against child pornography in the last decade have targeted the electronic exchange of child porn. There are a number of problems with this.

First of all, unlike regular porn, a majority of child pornography takes place off-line. Whether it's someone's personal collection of lewd pictures they've taken, whether it's two people exchanging photos, or even the distribution of illegal child porn magazines (they do exist), most child porn doesn't even make it to the internet. Most sexual crimes against children aren't found on the internet, but are found from tips given to law enforcement from acquaintances of the pedophile. Basically, they aren't giving law enforcement the tools they need lately to combat the majority of child porn. Perhaps these laws will be worthwhile 10 years from now, but they're mostly useless now.

Second of all, cyber policing is still a relatively new part of law enforcement. Due to this, it's quite undermanned and underfunded. So, they're making new laws to help online child porn, but they don't have a very good way of enforcing them. Perhaps 10 years from now the sector will be much more effective, but as it stands now, it's an extremely small part of law enforcement that gets little attention.

Third of all, crimes against children are but a fraction of computer-related crimes. You have identity theft, hacking, pirating, distributing illegal material (drugs & the human organ trade), scams, threats against the president, etc. Remember, cyber policing is quite underfunded and undermanned already, so the time that these people can spend working on child porn cases is severely limited even more by all the other crimes they have to work on, as well.

Basically, as of now, the laws they've been passing as of late really have no teeth and aren't very effective in combating child porn as a whole. That's ridiculous.

__________________
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” -Dr. Carl Sagan

Yes, they're basically "feel good" laws.

That is, laws with no teeth meant only to make the populace believe something is really being done.

Precisely. They're quite ineffective as of now.

Child Pornography Law Wackiness #5,991:

Take this scenerio: You have two men who's hard drives are confiscated by law enforcement. On both hard drives, deleted child porn is recovered from the slack portions of the hard drive. One of the men is convicted for possession of child pornography, the other is not. The determining deference? One man is knowledgeable about computers, the other is not.

It was recently decided that deleted child porn from hard drives cannot be held against someone with no computer knowledge, as that person unknowingly still possessed the pictures and as such, did not have access to them (or did not intend to access them). However, from my understanding of the ruling, if it can be proven that the person is computer literate, it can be assumed that the person understands how to retrieve deleted material, so the child pornography is still considered to be in their intentional possession.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

__________________
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” -Dr. Carl Sagan

Christ what stupidity.

Makes ME want to collect the shit just so I can shoot a cop trying to bust my door down to confiscate my shit.

I'd be perfectly justified too. I have two kids of my own. They (the cops) have no business in my house unless I invite them.

Dead cops.

Noo fucking donut dead cop

Maybe not. I guess there's no need to shoot a cop because our laws are retarded.

They don't make the dumb ass things LOL

Plus if I had to go in search of kiddie porn I'd probably get pissed off.

More pissed off than regular that is :-)

Yea, it's not really the fault of the police, but the lawmakers and judges. The police can only be as good as the laws they try to uphold.

The current things that need to be worked on, in my opinion, are:

Consistency. There are plenty of examples where two people do the exact same thing, yet only one of them can be charged with child porn due to some minor and seemingly unrelated and hard to determine factor (such as computer knowledge, whether the picture uses adults or cartoons, etc.)

Make laws you can enforce. Most of the recent laws are pointless, because there are next to no one to enforce them. As of now, the internet is still a wild west of sorts, with very, very little enforcement actually occurring.

Make a clear definition of what constitutes child pornography. This is still very much up to the personal decision of a single judge, determined on a case by case basis. Sure, a child engaging in a sex act is certainly child pornography, but it's hardly ever that clear cut.

It seems to me that anti-child pornography laws started out with the right intention, which is to protect children from being exploited for sexual purposes. However, lately it seems like the laws have lost sight of that and are less about protecting children and more about punishing people that seem creepy, whether they pose a threat or not.

__________________
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” -Dr. Carl Sagan

If you want to execute every single person who looks at child porn, my guess is you'd likely have to execute 12.5% of the human population (or maybe more).

I have a hunch that many more adults (both male and female) than would care to admit are simply sexually aroused by kids who are either nude or wearing ANY kind of attire that reveals skin,

and these pics aren't just found on illicit Internet sites, but in fashion magazines, store catalogs, sales ads, YouTube, in newspapers, . . .in a nutshell, everywhere, including media that's 100% legal.

And, of course, this also means that to ban kiddie porn, you'd have to ban all these pics!

So what to do? The line has to be drawn somewhere, so we can just punish those who deliberately publish pics of kids w/the intent of selling it so others will be aroused, but that's difficult to detect, since very few of those people are likely to admit their intentions.

Bottom line is kiddie porn is here to say, as disgusting as it is, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

I refuse to believe that.

Yes, it may be here to stay. But to suggest that nothing can be done about it is a defeatist attitude...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I dont see a victim here, so no reason to make it a crime. It doesnt make sense to forbid people to hold a dick in their hand while looking at a picture. What if he doesnt have a picture but only thinks about it? Should that be a crime?

I would not care if someone were to obtain a naked picture of me or my child and hold a dick in his hand while looking at it.

I say we should track down abuse of children, not harmless material. The internet can help in that.

That is an unfortunate lack of insight on your part.
It must be illegal for no other reason than if one is perverted enough to whack off while looking at a child's photo - there is a thin line that would stop him from taking it to the next step.

A thin line? There is a huge thick line between thinking of something and actually doing it. Having a physical picture (thats what the discussion is about) doesnt change that.

Erik, you are lost...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Fight me on my arguments. What does a picture change?

I'm a bit weary of this argument, as well. I understand what you're saying, though.

This argument is also used for video games, for example. People saying that if you enjoy violent video games, you're a step away from murdering people in real life.

The thing is, except for a small portion of mentally unstable people, most people are able to discern between reality and fantasy. What they choose to act out in their fantasies, whether it be beating a hooker to death in Grand Theft Auto, masturbating to a porn star or masturbating to a child, usually tends to stay in people's fantasies.

Unless it can be shown that pedophiles are more likely to act out on their fantasies, I'm not too convinced with this argument.

__________________
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” -Dr. Carl Sagan