Congress to tackle child porn

[Checkmite]

There's only so much Congress can do, granted. But that doesn't mean the effort isn't worth it.

I'm sure many of you are aware of the issues surrounding the illegal downloading of music from the internet. According to Federal law, if you use a P2P or any other type of program to download pirated music, you can be fined up to $150,000.00. Boy, doesn't that suck.

What I bet you didn't know is that if you use the same programs to download child pornography, you can only be fined up to $50,000.00. Suckage? Much. This needs to be changed. See, contrary to what some people believe or are willing to accept, downloading child pornography is not a "victimless crime". The idea that people are downloading these images, - and the various things those people use these images for - weighs very, very, very heavily on the minds of those used to make them. It is a source of anguish the scale of which simply cannot be estimated by the unfamiliar.

However, Congress is trying to change all that. There is a bill being discussed, H.R. 4703 (Senate companion S. 2155), which would raise the maximum fine to be equal with that of illegally downloading music - $150,000.00. It also allows for individuals who are over 18, who were used for the production of child pornography, to seek civil redress from every single person who is caught possessing one or more of his/her (the victim's) images. Up until now, this avenue has only been available to the victims while they are still minors - obviously, there are all kinds of reasons such people remain silent until well into adulthood.

I'm not really that much of an activist, but I would really like to see this bill passed. To my knowledge, there is no organized "special interest group" trying to "get out the vote" on this one; yet I'm fairly certain it will pass without trouble. I just want to let you guys know about it - bet you hadn't heard about it until now.

The bill, by the way, is also known as "Masha's Law". Learn more about Masha Allen here.

 

[treble_head]

I have already written my senator and housepeople about it. childreen are not cool to think about in a sexual way. ever.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Your link goes to a blank page, Josh.

I think it's worth reading the proposed bill, since the last few times Congress has decided to "do something about child pornography" it wound up restricting adult pornography. "Won't someone think of the children?!" isn't good enough to justify blind support.

Like last year's venture into "fixing the internet": 18 U.S.C. section 2257.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

 

[BPSCG]

Meanwhile, the wheels continue to fall off Social Security as it careens down the mountain. We'll deal with that right after we've finished dealing with child pornography.

 

[Random]

Meanwhile, the wheels continue to fall off Social Security as it careens down the mountain. We'll deal with that right after we've finished dealing with child pornography.

Social Security is the picture of fiscal health compared to the disaster that is Medicare. Why don’t we do something about that first?

As for the topic of this thread, I have no problem increasing the fines for downloading child pornography provided it doesn’t bog itself down in the constitutional issues of simulated child pornography.

 

[Bikewer]

It seems to me that in general, attempts to legislate porn have been remarkably unsuccessful. Restrictive laws are frequently found to be unconstitutional, and prosecutions often difficult.
Child pornography is a somewhat different case, of course. However, it seems that numerous high-profile arrests of politicians, prominent buisnessmen, and clergy do not seem to have much effect on the proliferation. One seldom sees any headlines announcing the arrest of the perpetrators or manufacturers of this material.
Arrests for producing or "making" are generally the case of pedophiles copying or distributing material that's already floating around on the net or in print.
Just burning a CD or DVD of stuff you've downloaded constitutes "making".

I'm under the impression that most child pornography is produced overseas, where child prostitution, slavery, and similar abhorent practices are common.
Seems a bit more effort might be made to control things at this level.

 

[webfusion]

just sayin'

I think the thread topic headline could have been written this way:

"Congress to Take A Closer Look At Child Pornography"

 

[Checkmite]

Your link goes to a blank page, Josh.

I think it's worth reading the proposed bill, since the last few times Congress has decided to "do something about child pornography" it wound up restricting adult pornography. "Won't someone think of the children?!" isn't good enough to justify blind support.

Wow, I can't seem to be able to make a link work. Here's the entirety of the proposed bill:

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4703
To provide meaningful civil remedies for victims of the sexual exploitation of children.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 7, 2006
Mr. GINGREY (for himself and Mr. TIERNEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide meaningful civil remedies for victims of the sexual exploitation of children.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CIVIL REMEDIES.

(a) In General- Section 2255(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in the first sentence--

(A) by striking `(a) Any minor who is' and inserting the following:

`(a) In General- Any person who, while a minor, was';

(B) by inserting after `such violation' the following: `, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor,'; and

(C) by striking `such minor' and inserting `such person'; and

(2) in the second sentence--

(A) by striking `Any minor' and inserting `Any person'; and

(B) by striking `$50,000' and inserting `$150,000'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 2255(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `(b) Any action' and inserting the following:

`(b) Statute of Limitations- Any action'.

See? No funny business, no free speech issues. It's cool.

 

[geni]

See? No funny business, no free speech issues. It's cool.

If it was going to have any effect. Somehow I doubt the people downloading it are too worried about the size of any fine if they are caught. The problem is catching them in the first place.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm under the impression that most child pornography is produced overseas, where child prostitution, slavery, and similar abhorent practices are common.
Seems a bit more effort might be made to control things at this level.

It used to be this way; now, most child pornography is produced by parents or other adults who have access to both a child and a digital camera. The stuff is traded for free, in e-groups and on file-trading programs.

 

[Darat]

It used to be this way; now, most child pornography is produced by parents or other adults who have access to both a child and a digital camera. The stuff is traded for free, in e-groups and on file-trading programs.

I posted this link in another thread today, it has some relevance to your post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/global_crime_report/crime/ring.shtml

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Meanwhile, the wheels continue to fall off Social Security as it careens down the mountain. We'll deal with that right after we've finished dealing with child pornography.

That is not the subject of this thread. It's a non sequitor. Make another thread if you want to discuss it, before we derail this one.

 

[Bob Klase]

I think the thread topic headline could have been written this way:

"Congress to Take A Closer Look At Child Pornography"

Or "Congress to Take A Closer Look At Child Pornography... Again"

 

[casebro]

Feel Good legislation. Just exactly how many perps have: a) been caught, and b) payed a $50,000 fine ? SOoo, not much to be gained by fining them $150,000, is there?

Has the Supreme court even upheld the $150k fine for copyright downloads? Or could it be considered 'cruel and unusual'?

 

[luchog]

However, it seems that numerous high-profile arrests of politicians, prominent buisnessmen, and clergy do not seem to have much effect on the proliferation. One seldom sees any headlines announcing the arrest of the perpetrators or manufacturers of this material.

See below.

I'm under the impression that most child pornography is produced overseas, where child prostitution, slavery, and similar abhorent practices are common.
Seems a bit more effort might be made to control things at this level.

The majority of child porn appears to be produced in areas which are economically disadvantaged, and which either have no specific laws against it, or where the criminal justice system is too ineffectual to enforce existing laws. Right now, the biggest source for child porn is Russia and various Eastern European countries. Up until very recently, they were also one of the biggest sources of credit card theft in the world. The link should be obvious.

 

[luchog]

It used to be this way; now, most child pornography is produced by parents or other adults who have access to both a child and a digital camera. The stuff is traded for free, in e-groups and on file-trading programs.

Actually, that's not entirely true. While there is quite a bit of that around, and it is growing; the vast majority is still done overseas in places like Russia and Thailand. There are comparitively large-scale production groups in Russia and Eastern Europe run by organized crime that do nothing else but produce child porn and host websites for distribution and credit-card harvesting.

 

[Checkmite]

Feel Good legislation. Just exactly how many perps have: a) been caught, and b) payed a $50,000 fine ? SOoo, not much to be gained by fining them $150,000, is there?

This work is handled by the FBI's Innocent Images Initiative. According to their website, they've managed to convict 4,822 people for production, possession, or distribution of child pornography between 1996 and 2005.

 

[Checkmite]

Actually, that's not entirely true. While there is quite a bit of that around, and it is growing; the vast majority is still done overseas in places like Russia and Thailand. There are comparitively large-scale production groups in Russia and Eastern Europe run by organized crime that do nothing else but produce child porn and host websites for distribution and credit-card harvesting.

I was referring to child pornography produced using American children. This proposed legislation would not be able to help children used to make porn in Europe and Asia.

 

[Random]

See below.

The majority of child porn appears to be produced in areas which are economically disadvantaged, and which either have no specific laws against it, or where the criminal justice system is too ineffectual to enforce existing laws. Right now, the biggest source for child porn is Russia and various Eastern European countries. Up until very recently, they were also one of the biggest sources of credit card theft in the world. The link should be obvious.

"Hey, I signed up for a child pornography website and now I've been ripped off!"

I'm sure the Russian Police would get right on that one...

 

[b33fj3rky]

It also allows for individuals who are over 18, who were used for the production of child pornography, to seek civil redress from every single person who is caught possessing one or more of his/her (the victim's) images. Up until now, this avenue has only been available to the victims while they are still minors - obviously, there are all kinds of reasons such people remain silent until well into adulthood.

I'm against that provision of the law.

Now, I think child porn is horrible, and anyone who produces or posesses it should be punished. But I don't see how Creepy-Ass Pedophile Freak Boy dl'ing images of a child he never met does the kind of direct harm to that child that would warrant him giving monetary compensation to the child.

Yeah, the Creepy-Ass Pedophile should go to jail, serve time, for the crime of possesing kiddie porn. But I'd say the child deserves monetary compensation only from people whose actions have caused direct, demonstrable, personal harm, such as the sickos who created the images--not random strangers worldwide who happened to download the images, possibly even years after those images were produced.

(Try Usenet, for example. You can't go to any adult erotic-images newsgroup without accidentally running into kiddie-porn spam. You don't want it; it shouldn't be there; but it is, and sometimes you accidentally download it, because it doesn't SAY that it's child porn in the headers. You don't realize until it's too late. That's the problem with Usenet--no way to know what an image is until it's already polluting your hard drive.)

I think this law is an example of Congress doing something that makes for good soundbites, that makes people feel better about a horrible situation, yet has no basis in common sense.

On an article I saw about Masha (the girl the new law's named after), it said that Masha feels horrible knowing that, to this day, people are still downloading those images, years after the images were created. And it's a horrible situation, it is--and that's the nature of the 'net, that once something's put up, it's nearly impossible to eradicate. And I can certainly see how that would make somebody feel awful, knowing that sick images of them being molested will be, more or less in perpetuity, online.

But since when do people get cash awards because something made them "feel awful?" I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm not trying to minimize the pain or seriousness of the victims. But I don't like the idea that somebody can sue just because something hurt their feelings. God knows I've had people say and do things to me that destroyed me emotionally, but I don't feel that I deserve any money for my pain.