Except DISTRIBUTING is not the only thing punished, but HAVING it too, and that is where it gets really, really silly.
I think Falkinvinge wrote a article about that...
I think Falkinvinge wrote a article about that...
Out of curiosity, do you have data to support that? If the stories are true, you can't really swing a cat in the space of Tor hidden services without hitting a public server full of CP.
1. An innocuous imageboard where someone posts child pornography, but the moderators quickly remove it.
2. A dedicate child pornography forum where people gain access to "higher levels" by posting more child pornography.
3. A peer-to-peer network, where by connecting to the network a person contributes to its operation, and where some child pornography can be found (but plenty of other files as well).
I do not think we would want to see people prosecuted for downloading child pornography in the first case (maybe for uploading it); that would allow anyone to poison any forum they want. On the other hand, we clearly do want to prosecute people for the second scenario, as it pretty clearly encourages more child pornography to be produced.
What about the last one? On the one hand, there is an exchange occurring -- by connecting to the network, someone is providing increased bandwidth and potentially increases the anonymity of the system, both of which likely benefit a child pornography producer. On the other hand, if we prosecute people for that, we would effectively outlaw many of the protocols in use on the Internet right now, and make criminals out of the millions of users/operators of those systems.
Personally, I would make a requirement that the defendant's actions directly encourage the production of child pornography, and that the defendant knowingly undertook those actions for the purpose of obtaining child pornography. Yes, it is a high bar, but that is how the American criminal justice system is supposed to work (cannot speak for other countries) -- the bar is supposed to be high, as a protection from tyranny.
There are unfortunate cases, like the one in this article, in which a person possesses child porn but may not have intentionally purchased or downloaded it. However, these are edge cases.
If prosecutors had to prove that the offender purchased the material in every case, it would create a very high burden for law enforcement, enabling people to violate child protection laws that are already difficult to enforce.
Did you RTFA? Are you claiming that this man having pictures of his own grandchildren playing in their yard naked is "unintentional possession of child pornography"? You might as well lock up every grandparent in the country now.
"going after the consumers in that economy is one effective strategy"
Yes, just like how effective it's been in the "drug war"...
I absolutely agree children need to be protected from being exploited, but this practice is not the answer.
And the idea behind targeting the consumers of child porn is really quite simple. If we can agree that creating sexual videos of a minor constitutes abuse, then those who purchase the tapes are supporting the abuse.
I don't think we can agree with such a blanket statement as "creating sexual videos of a minor constitutes abuse", if you're going to classify all imagery of naked children as sexual. Have you spent much time around kids? When it's hot out, it's all you can do to keep the clothes on the young ones. Likewise, parents take lots of photos and videos of their kids when they are young, often candid photos of them playing. Those are cherished memories when they grow up.
You can't classify something as porn because someone somewhere might get sexually aroused by it. If there's one thing I've learned from coming across some bizarre stuff around online in the past 20 years, it's that there is someone, somewhere, who finds a way to be sexually aroused by anything and everything.
Shouldn't the crime be purchasing child pornography? A person could consume child pornography without purchasing it, in secret, without contributing to its production at all. Say, someone who downloads it from a peer to peer network.
That's what we thought about drugs, too, and with drugs we could be confident that someone in possession of them either produced them or supported their production by paying for them. Consumers might be able to give you information about producers, and the threat of prosecution might induce them to do so... but that too is reasoning that failed us in the drug war.
Whoa wait. The accused did not possess child porn. How could that be your takeaway from the article? He had pictures of his grandchildren playing naked.
Once tarred with that brush, it's very difficult to remove the stain.
EDIT: And what about the kids charged with child porn possession, and potentially branded for life as sex offenders, for sexting with their boy-/girlfriend?
"If prosecutors had to prove that the offender purchased the material in every case, it would create a very high burden for law enforcement"
You make this sound like a bad thing -- having a high burden of proof before we throw people in jail and restrict where they can live after their release from prison.
The person in this article did not possess child porn.
I bring all this up, because this is precisely the type scenario depicted in the article. This isn't a pedophile. This is a family taking pictures of normal family stuff. And let's not forget the consequences of just being charged with child porn much less a conviction.
This whole government infatuation with pedophilia is absurd and nothing more than a convenient distraction to push ever more draconian agendas.
Even more bizarre were the later years of that hysteria, when people were accused of engaging in complex rituals involving child sex abuse, animal sacrifice (or human sacrifice), and satanic worship. It was an actual witch hunt, in an advanced, industrialized society. The moral panic cooled down once attorneys general started investigating the DAs cases, psychologists began pointing out the flawed methodology used to question the children, and people generally started realizing just how crazy things had become. Unfortunately, the hysteria is not over, it is just a bit less ridiculous than it was 20 years ago.
> Do these make me a pedo?
In the eyes of the law, likely.
> What about similar pictures my in laws have taken?
Yes, it's not advisable to take these kind of pictures.
> What about pictures of my young nieces and nephews doing similar things?
Yes, if there's nudity.
> Additionally, have you been around kids in bathing suits?
Not a problem.
> Sometimes the ones for little girls don't fit too well. There aren't exactly many curves to hold things in position at that age. What about accidental pictures of those mishaps?
Don't take pictures of kids in bathing suits.
Pretty much the rule is don't be around kids and don't touch kids unless they're yours, and I think everybody knows this today. And as a global rule, don't take pictures of kids at all, but especially avoid any that could involve any type of nudity, intentional or accidental (I'd avoid bathing suit shots for sure).
There might be a greater societal harm being done here, because as a male in my 20s, I have almost no interaction with children (which I think is fairly typical, at least among my peers). This could be a problem for my generation, as we're less likely to know how to handle kids; and it could be a problem for the younger generations as they don't get to interact with many adults besides their immediate family and friends. Either way, I think the societal rules about what's ok and what's not ok are reasonably well defined, if very arbitrary.
> Don't take pictures of kids in bathing suits.
That's absolutely ridiculous.
So basically, don't take pictures of your kids in the summer.
This is insane. With my kids and their cousins, we have 6 kids in the 0-8 year old bracket. The 1-3 year old kids all take baths together when we get together and they run around in their diapers (topless - omfg!).
These are wonderful years for all of us (the glee they have running around together in diapers and through sprinklers). Not capturing these memories should be the crime.
This seems kinda extreme, like not using electricity because of a potential fire hazard. I pick up my friend's kids, I read to them, they climb over me, I find it incredibly offensive that you assume I'm a child molester because I've held a child that didn't come out of my wife's uterus.
It's more like not doing your own electrical work because you're not an electrician. You need to evaluate the risk and decide for yourself, but if you're a male in the US and it's not your child, you should be aware that you are in fact taking a risk.
For the record, I also find it offensive that people will assume you're a child molester, but obviously (from the article) these kind of assumptions do happen, and IMO you should proceed with caution.
It's very normal here to dress your kid of either gender in just the pants or nothing at all (when they're very small) - no problem.
I think Johnathon Swift would agree that killing all of the children is a way more effective strategy at stopping CP. I mean investigators only care about stopping this behavior.
> If prosecutors had to prove that the offender purchased the material in every case, it would create a very high burden for law enforcement, enabling people to violate child protection laws that are already difficult to enforce.
Wouldn't that mean that it isn't an effective strategy? It's only an effective strategy, because you can easily arrest anyone -- all you have to do is email them photos that makes them a felon.