An important question is: Does criminalizing the possesion of child porn reduce the chance of those original crimes from happening? I think it does, and I think that's a good reason to ban it.
It's also a good way to discourage people who like child porn, to tell them that there is something wrong with them, and that they should not do it.
> Does criminalizing the possesion of child porn reduce the chance of those original crimes from happening? I think it does, and I think that's a good reason to ban it.
"I think it does" is not a sufficient motivation for a federal law. Generally, evidence should be required to drive policy, but I'd settle for successful deployment to a small number of jurisdictions before scaled deployments.
> It's also a good way to discourage people who like child porn, to tell them that there is something wrong with them, and that they should not do it.
Oh yeah, because a good scolding works so well for addicts.
Here's an example: Gay men. For decades they were shunned and told they were horrible. The act was illegal, and if a gay man flirted with someone, no-one'd look the other way if the fliter was assaulted, possibly killed. You could be fired for being gay, or kicked out of your home. As a result there were very few acts of gay sex and many gay men did not live as gay men, instead staying in the closet and living as if they were straight; wife, kids the lot. So yes, shunning and scolding people can work to reduce the rate of which the sex act is done. (How else can you explain how many gay men lived as straight men for so long?)
But as I stated above, that path leads to ignoring mens rea. Instead of "did you mean to", it is "you possessed it, too bad". This is badness to the point that I could send people CP via picture message on their phones, and turn them in.
Or worst yet, a 15 yr old girl sent a naked picture to her boyfriend. And then, SHE was prosecuted for the production of child porn. And it's her own fucking body!
Lastly, I do not count on politicians (of any party) being reasonable about this issue. They make crap laws, with holes and failures, and the prosecutors apply said laws the way they see fit. So, I am forced to fight for legalization of the pictures (AND prison time for the rapists).
No it doesn't.
"a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists" - page 14 of [0]
Also note that US law allows for an "affirmative defense" [1] if you discover you possess a small amount of CP but do not intend to -- you can either destroy it, or turn it in to law enforcement, without consequence.
Which means, quite simply, that the courts have not abandoned mens rea in CP law. There are some parts of the law that are stupid, but that's not one of them.
[0] http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12....
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A ; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
Well can't we just make it a law that it's illegal to possess and intend to possess child porn? What's so hard about that. You can often tell based on the files in a computer whether they intended to posses it. Are there dozens/hundreds of images, or only one? Are the images organised, or in the temporary browser cache? Have the images been saved over many dates or were they all created at once? The solution is better written laws, not no laws.
Or worst yet, a 15 yr old girl sent a naked picture to her boyfriend. And then, SHE was prosecuted for the production of child porn. And it's her own fucking body!
Oh I agree that that should not be illegal. So it's just a matter of tweaking the law to exclude that.
We have too many laws on the books (via local, state, and national) that nobody can be sure they aren't breaking SOME law, sometime. Last thing I want are more laws, that weren't tested to check validity.
And frankly, I don't trust the Democrats, Republicans, Independants, Libertarians, or whomever is in Congress. The lot of them have proved, time and again, that they are incompetent.
1: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1795...
See http://www.crimevictimsinstitute.org/documents/Adolescent_Be... , which has an extensive list of state-by-state laws.
More likely, he's aware but chose not to address it (he confirms this in a sibling comment.) His point was about the effect of legalizing CP on "adult/children sex"; including disclaimers about age gaps involving borderline-adults and borderline-children would have made his comment less readable for little benefit.
The natural response to someone missing a disclaimer is to either let it slide or to note it in a non-adversarial way ("it is legal for those close enough in age" or something like that.)
But there is an large age range where it almost certainly should be illegal. Is there any situtation where a 40 year old can have sex with a 10 year old? I think not. This is and should be illegal. We should stamp that out.
Children should be able to have sex with other children legally. Though I don't know how you could transfer that legality to porn.
Look at sexting. Kids can be charged with child pornography simply for having naked pictures of themselves, or their girlfriend/boyfriend, on their phone.
I figure if I'm underage, I should still be able to take pictures and possess pornography featuring myself. And if I so desire, why shouldn't I be able to sell that picture and make money?
I'm not necessarily advocating all this, it's just food for thought.
And while we agree upon the differences between the child porn and violent movies, I really don't trust lawmakers on making rulings for the consuming side of the equation. I wouldn't give them an inch.
After all, what's the difference (in the US) between a 17 yr 364 day old and a 18 yr old? A felony.
And if you want to talk about slopes, how about the one this Feldman is on? He has yet to be charged with a crime, and that's enough to hand over your privacy, livelihood, and future, completely. Even if he complies and found guilty of no crime, he is going to have a mark to carry through the rest of his life. Again, as the parent presents, we have this exact problem with images traded by 18 and 17.99 year olds.
But it's been a while since I've read http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A ; feel free to prove me wrong.
Yes. And I'm OK with that.
And yes there are few cases where a very broad written law can be bad, like a teenager sending a naked picture of themselves. Laws should be written better to exclude that. There is a vast amount of "sexual pictures of children" however that is quite clear to define, and should be illegal.