New York rules its cool to look at kiddie porn

[Unarmed Gunman]

I didn't edit the headshot part, and still agree with his whole point except for Say's law, but that is irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the penal-law.

OK so...do you think supply follows demand or the other way around? I don't even know what your point is now, to be honest. My argument is that the demand creates an incentive for supply and to get that supply, children become victims. Guerilla thinks a child can consent to sex, which might explain why I can not see his argument as valid. Perhaps you can.

The reason I disagree with the ruling is because traffic on the internet has value, so enabling the traffic to exist even without the downloading or buying of the images creates a larger market for the victimization of children. The market would always exist, but this ruling will make the demand increase. When the demand increases, the supply will fill that void.

UG, you just inadvertently looked at some porn, does that make you a pornographer, a rapist or a sicko?

Adult porn is legal and they consented to the act, so your analogy is irrelevant. It seems like you're missing the point.

 

[babebot]

Adult porn is legal and they consented to the act, so your analogy is irrelevant. It seems like you're missing the point.

What if I told you that the female in question is actually only fifteen and had been fed alcohol and drugs to make her compliant and take part?

Does that now make you a criminal?

Not everything you see on the net is what you think you are seeing, and not everything you thought you would get is what you are getting.

So I see Guerilla's question as valid...sorry. Not trying to defend child porn - it's indefensible, but you can't make a judgement on someones moral efficacy based on something they may have accidentally stumbled across. That is the point I think you'll find he is trying to make. I could be wrong...lol.


BTW, that first bit is not true.

Can't post without a pic:

 

[clyde]

OK so...do you think supply follows demand or the other way around? I don't even know what your point is now, to be honest. My argument is that the demand creates an incentive for supply and to get that supply, children become victims. Guerilla thinks a child can consent to sex, which might explain why I can not see his argument as valid. Perhaps you can.

The reason I disagree with the ruling is because traffic on the internet has value, so enabling the traffic to exist even without the downloading or buying of the images creates a larger market for the victimization of children. The market would always exist, but this ruling will make the demand increase. When the demand increases, the supply will fill that void.



Adult porn is legal and they consented to the act, so your analogy is irrelevant. It seems like you're missing the point.

You're assuming that everybody that sees a picture of CP actually demands it. That's the flaw of your argument.

As for guerilla's point, I think he's talking about how 18 is the legal age, and 17 y/o is still considered a child. It's stupid considering 14-15 y/o are already sexually active and should be allowed to consent.

"Child" as far as the current law system is concerned is not pre-pubertal girls/boys, it's everybody under 18.

The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images.

The ruling is actually there to protect innocent internet users. Just because I saw a picture of CP from a popup of some shady site from China doesn't mean that I was actively looking for CP. If you want to convict someone it shouldn't be as easy as "oh there's a cache copy in his /temp/ folder". That doesn't show intent to download and shouldn't hold in the court of law. That's all.

Plus, it's not that hard to upload CP to youtube.com and show it to some random person and consficate that person's computer because the video is now in his cache.

 

[Ar Scion]

OK so...do you think supply follows demand or the other way around? I don't even know what your point is now, to be honest. My argument is that the demand creates an incentive for supply and to get that supply, children become victims. Guerilla thinks a child can consent to sex, which might explain why I can not see his argument as valid. Perhaps you can.

The reason I disagree with the ruling is because traffic on the internet has value, so enabling the traffic to exist even without the downloading or buying of the images creates a larger market for the victimization of children. The market would always exist, but this ruling will make the demand increase. When the demand increases, the supply will fill that void.

Adult porn is legal and they consented to the act, so your analogy is irrelevant. It seems like you're missing the point.

I see what the both of you are saying.

But how about instead of criminalizing viewing, which can be a very hairy direction to move in, we instead pursue the people who are hosting?

Obviously this does nothing to the jackass who was looking at kids. Which is a problem. Maybe viewing can constitute reasonable suspicion and justify keeping tabs on these guys.

 

[guerilla]

Agreed. People will always find a way of doing things they want to do. But dont you think somewhere in the webmaster world, we need to draw a line and think morally.

None of you are ready to embrace what I consider moral, so no, I don't think trying to impose morals on other people is a good use of time.

Criminalization is something we have dealt with over the past few decades. Stating the obvious isnt modern thinking, its redundantly retarded.

What does this mean in English?

 

[guerilla]

But how about instead of criminalizing viewing, which can be a very hairy direction to move in, we instead pursue the people who are hosting?

UG still hasn't even made a case for criminalizing viewing except that he doesn't understand cause and effect.

Outside of offending your sensibilities, the only crime of kiddie porn is a violation against the child, if there isn't consent.

Just because you don't like kiddie porn, doesn't make hosting it or viewing it a crime. It's not a criminal act if I do things you don't like. There is no harm except your butthurt feelings, which doesn't constitute a tort.

 

[guerilla]

Read the wiki link I provided, it answers your "you're an idiot, you're wrong" argument.

Don't waste your time talking to people who can't discuss topics that require logical thinking.

They don't want to think, they don't make time to think, and they aren't going to change. People with a natural sense of intellectual honesty and curiosity never get as bad as that. And people who don't develop it late into adulthood probably never will.

 

[mattseh]

UG still hasn't even made a case for criminalizing viewing except that he doesn't understand cause and effect.

Outside of offending your sensibilities, the only crime of kiddie porn is a violation against the child, if there isn't consent.

Just because you don't like kiddie porn, doesn't make hosting it or viewing it a crime. It's not a criminal act if I do things you don't like. There is no harm except your butthurt feelings, which doesn't constitute a tort.

So it seems you just said that sex with a child that has consented should not be a crime? Which word(s) did I forget to define?

 

[guerilla]

So it seems you just said that sex with a child that has consented should not be a crime? Which word(s) did I forget to define?

If there is consent, what is the crime?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

guerilla, you keep saying the child is only a victim if they don't consent. What age do you think a child has the mental capacity to "consent" to being used in porn? In other words, define consent.

Also, for everyone using the driveby viewing argument, that's the whole point of laws, to separate those instances from repeated behavior. Just like you can't condemn anyone that accidentally stumbled across CP, you can't exonerate everyone that actively seeks it out because that traffic has value, and that value will be met with a supply which will lead to more kids being victimized.

 

[mattseh]

guerilla, you keep saying the child is only a victim if they don't consent. What age do you think a child has the mental capacity to "consent" to being used in porn?

exactly this.

 

[guerilla]

guerilla, you keep saying the child is only a victim if they don't consent.

I am saying that there cannot be a victim if they consented to the act.

This is also what most courts believe.

What age do you think a child has the mental capacity to "consent" to being used in porn?

I have absolutely no idea. It's not relevant to the issue of crime and consent. It may be relevant to the determination of what a child is, but I am not arguing about the definition of a child, I am arguing about the definition of a crime.

Regardless of whether the so-called victim is a child or not, there is either a crime or there isn't.

 

[guerilla]

exactly this.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

You didn't answer my question.

You didn't answer mine.

You say the child is not a victim if they consented.

Can a 7 year old consent to that?

How about a 4 year old?

How about a 12 year old?

You have to pick a number, as arbitrary as it may seem to you. The courts have ruled that the age of majority is 18 which is when you can legally enter contracts etc and could "consent" to being used in porn. If you think the law is bogus, you should provide a better alternative, not dodge the question.

 

[wayn3]

He doesnt see your question which is partly your fault because you assume bullshit "morals". a 7 year old can agree to sex the same way it can agree to walking off a cliff. is it a good decision? probably not. consent tho

now you assume that because the offender tricks the victim into sex because he doesnt tell him how bad it is. if thats a crime, thats bad news for you guys because most of you believe in having to trick women into getting some of that juicy intercourse, which makes all of you rapists.

which is a train of thought you can subscribe to. or you can say its bs because the law doesnt say that specifically. theres a word for that kind of person which i dont know in the english language. it basically comes down to believing somethings right because its law. if thats your opinion, then you have no business posting in this thread. your opinion is that of the guy who wrote law. we mostly know law so anything you post doesnt contain new information

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

He doesnt see your question which is partly your fault because you assume bullshit "morals". a 7 year old can agree to sex the same way it can agree to walking off a cliff. is it a good decision? probably not. consent tho

Wrong, consent is actually defined:

Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement.

By that definition, a child can not consent to being used in porn, or many other things for that matter. Making a decision is not the same as consenting. Words have definitions for a reason, especially in matters of law.

 

[guerilla]

You didn't answer mine.

I did.

You have to pick a number, as arbitrary as it may seem to you.

No, I don't.

The courts have ruled that the age of majority is 18 which is when you can legally enter contracts etc and could "consent" to being used in porn.

That's a matter of legislation, not legal opinion.

If you think the law is bogus, you should provide a better alternative, not dodge the question.

I haven't dodged the question at all. There is no crime, and hence no domain for the courts if there is consent. This is a fact.

Whether or not someone is a "child" capable of rendering consent is an opinion.

This may be news to you in particular but opinions are not facts.

 

[clyde]

Also, for everyone using the driveby viewing argument, that's the whole point of laws, to separate those instances from repeated behavior.

Yes, so why do you disagree with the ruling?

Just like you can't condemn anyone that accidentally stumbled across CP, you can't exonerate everyone that actively seeks it out because that traffic has value, and that value will be met with a supply which will lead to more kids being victimized.

You have proof for this assertion?

 

[guerilla]

He doesnt see your question which is partly your fault because you assume bullshit "morals". a 7 year old can agree to sex the same way it can agree to walking off a cliff. is it a good decision? probably not. consent tho

Moralizers have trouble with theory of mind.

 

[clyde]

Whether or not someone is a "child" capable of rendering consent is an opinion.

This may be news to you in particular but opinions are not facts.

Indeed. In most EU countries it's 14, in Saudi Arabia it's 0, various states in the US have different consent age as well. 16-18.