600 Americans Busted In Global Child Porn Ring

[geni]

How did manning still sucks get set as a tag? That's great! Unfortunately, I think the article says that 600 are being investigated, which after reading other stories like this, means relatively few will actually be found or prosecuted...

They made payments so likely anyone the police do catch up with will be found guilty.

 

[bigred]

Exactly, these kids where abused for financial gain, in effect the sick bastards who paid for this were paying people to abuse kids for them, they are (almost) as guilty as the people who physically abused the kids.

Sure they're in the ultra-slime ballpark, but there is QUITE a difference in watching something happen (or even wanting to watch it) vs DOING it. This is stuff that was downloaded from the 'net; it wasn't like they went out and hired these people to do it, and pls tell me you don't think that's the same thing.

That's like saying someone who downloads porn is the same as a prostitute, or someone who downloads .MP3s is a musician. good grief

 

[bigred]

How did manning still sucks get set as a tag? That's great!

yeah, Baltimorons are more hilarious than ever now.

 

[Checkmite]

Sure they're in the ultra-slime ballpark, but there is QUITE a difference in watching something happen (or even wanting to watch it) vs DOING it. This is stuff that was downloaded from the 'net; it wasn't like they went out and hired these people to do it, and pls tell me you don't think that's the same thing.

They are absolutely not the same thing. On the sick freak scale, people who download child pornography are somewhat less sick than people who produce the stuff. But do not be misled; the "less sick" people who merely download the stuff are still profoundly sick freaks, and yes, they still need to go to jail. Preferably for a while.

A fine would be nice too.

A big one, please.

 

[steverino]

On a lighter note, I first read this thread as:

"600 Americans Busted in Global Warming Porn Ring"

I think anything these days with the word "Global" is gunna throw me.

 

[bigred]

They are absolutely not the same thing. On the sick freak scale, people who download child pornography are somewhat less sick than people who produce the stuff. But do not be misled; the "less sick" people who merely download the stuff are still profoundly sick freaks, and yes, they still need to go to jail. Preferably for a while.

A fine would be nice too.

A big one, please.

...and yet I never heard anyone say that people who not only downloaded but made FUN of the Nick Berg killing should get so much as a slap on the wrist.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I find it kinda odd that the thread title mentions "child" but not "rape". Isn't the latter the more relevant? Which would be worse: video of an adult being raped, or video of a child willingly having sex? The impression I get is that many people would say the latter, and that seems rather bizarre to me. I can agree that raping a child is worse than raping an adult, but I don't see how it's considered a completely different category.

If you actively seek out material (for other than law-enforcement reasons) in which children are actually being harmed then you are just as culpable as those doing the harming.

How?

Does this apply to other crimes? Are people who watched video of Reginald Denny getting beaten up guilty of attempted murder? Does it matter whether the person enjoyed seeing him get beaten up?

I also don't see a difference between "abused for financial gain" vs. "abused for s[rule 8]s and giggles".

Producing porn can get rather expensive. If there's a good revenue source, those expenses are relatively small. But if someone is doing it simply for personal pleasure, that's a rather difficult habit to keep up.

...and I think anyone who could enjoy pornography involving little kids is a sick little ************ and should have his head kicked in and genitals stomped. I have no tolerance for these people.

So people should be punished for something they have no control over? It's this sort of thinking that leads to gaybashing.

 

[brodski]

Sure they're in the ultra-slime ballpark, but there is QUITE a difference in watching something happen (or even wanting to watch it) vs DOING it. This is stuff that was downloaded from the 'net; it wasn't like they went out and hired these people to do it, and pls tell me you don't think that's the same thing.

If I buy a fur coat, i have paid for that fur coat to be produced, I am responsible for the death of those animals which made the fur coat.
If I buy child porn, I have paid for those children to be abused.
Now, fur coats may be made, and child porn may be produced even if there was no market for either- then there would be a lot less of both produced.

That's like saying someone who downloads porn is the same as a prostitute, or someone who downloads .MP3s is a musician. good grief

not at all, but it is the same as saying that someone who pays for a murder to be committed is a murderer, even if they where not physically involve d in the murder.

 

[brodski]

I find it kinda odd that the thread title mentions "child" but not "rape". Isn't the latter the more relevant? Which would be worse: video of an adult being raped, or video of a child willingly having sex? The impression I get is that many people would say the latter, and that seems rather bizarre to me. I can agree that raping a child is worse than raping an adult, but I don't see how it's considered a completely different category.

The reason that the word "rape" isn't used is that it is not necessary, by definition "child porn" involves rape, as children are not capable of consenting to sex.
If we where to refer to child rape porn, that would imply that there is child porn which is not rape.

 

[Megalodon]

I find it kinda odd that the thread title mentions "child" but not "rape". Isn't the latter the more relevant? Which would be worse: video of an adult being raped, or video of a child willingly having sex?

A child cannot willingly have sex. A child, by definition, is not developed enough to endure unharmed the physical stress of sex with an adult; or mature enough to handle the phsicological games that precede it, or the confusion that follows it. Thus you cannot, by definition, see a video of a child willingly having sex.

The impression I get is that many people would say the latter, and that seems rather bizarre to me. I can agree that raping a child is worse than raping an adult, but I don't see how it's considered a completely different category.

if someone has sex whit a child, they can not avoid raping them, since any sex with a child is a violent, coercive activity. And before someone retorts with the pleasure issue, making someone have an orgasm during rape does not mean it's less rape.

Does this apply to other crimes? Are people who watched video of Reginald Denny getting beaten up guilty of attempted murder? Does it matter whether the person enjoyed seeing him get beaten up?

If someone sets up a ring with the sole purpose of recording assault for profit, and people pay fees to see them, then yes, those persons should be prosecuted.
Alternatively, if a news crew catches a child rapist on the act, and the footage makes it to the net, someone who downloads it is not a criminal. A scumsucking nematode yes, but not a criminal.

It has to do with intent, and with willingly funding a criminal activity.

Producing porn can get rather expensive. If there's a good revenue source, those expenses are relatively small. But if someone is doing it simply for personal pleasure, that's a rather difficult habit to keep up.

Producing porn needs participants, a camera, and viewers. In the case of rape, you have a willing criminal (who might actually do it for free) and a rape victim. And you have thousands of dirt bags buying it... It seems to me it might be a lucrative enterprise for the producer... if you don't account with the long years that he will hopefully spend in jail.

So people should be punished for something they have no control over? It's this sort of thinking that leads to gaybashing.

Some men (and women) have rape fantasies. They cannot avoid it. But that does not mean that they would ever act on them. Similarly, pedophiles have rape fantasies, which they cannot avoid. However, only some of them act them out.

You have no control over your desires, and that should never be punished. But you do have control over your actions. And if your actions will harm someone, then you better stick to your fantasies.

 

[Beerina]

The reason that the word "rape" isn't used is that it is not necessary, by definition "child porn" involves rape, as children are not capable of consenting to sex.
If we where to refer to child rape porn, that would imply that there is child porn which is not rape.

Given apparently in some of the videos, the children are screaming, I think it counts as rape no matter how detailed your definition.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The reason that the word "rape" isn't used is that it is not necessary, by definition "child porn" involves rape, as children are not capable of consenting to sex.
If we where to refer to child rape porn, that would imply that there is child porn which is not rape.

Not necessarily, a teen filming themselves is considered child porn legally, but is not rape in a practical sense. And then there are many places where the age of consent in below the age to be in a porn movie.

 

[billydkid]

...and yet I never heard anyone say that people who not only downloaded but made FUN of the Nick Berg killing should get so much as a slap on the wrist.

Your point is well taken. Certainly there is not very much that is more "obscene" than watching someone have their head hacked off. This is where it gets very confusing and forces us to face some of the distortions in our value systems. I am not talking specifically about child porn here which we would all agree is obscene and exploitive in the very worst sense. But it is true you can still see people literally being killed on TV - not just the simulated killing of TV dramas - and while it is considered unpleasant it is not generally considered obscene. Somehow Janet Jackson's breast is. This is not some tremendous new insight or anything.

As far as child exploitation goes (and it is arguable that it is limited just to child porn) I have always felt that it is important to draw a very clear distinction between those actually abusing the child or contributing to the abuse and those who are merely passive consumers. Whatever you might think of viewing or enjoying this kind of thing - an no doubt we all think it is sick - you can not consider it equivalent to the actual abuse of a child or the facilitation of that abuse. However harshly one feels that passive consumers of this material should be dealt with it stands to reason that those producing or facilitating the production of such material should be dealt with very much more harshly and it should be considered a much more serious offense. If you treat all crimes the same, you eliminate the neccessary distinction between truly horrific behavior and behavior that is, perhaps marginally, less so and perhaps behavior that is significantly less so. By raising one you inevitably lower the other in its unacceptability.

 

[Drudgewire]

600? That's a lot of people researching kiddie porn for an article they're writing.

 

[bigred]

If I buy a fur coat, i have paid for that fur coat to be produced, I am responsible for the death of those animals which made the fur coat.

No, the people who killed the animals responsible for the death of those animals which made the fur coat. PS I do not imply the purchasers are "guilt-free" or total slime. But to equate them to those that do the act is grossly inaccurate.

if there was no market for either- then there would be a lot less of both produced.

True enough. That still doesn't put any one person who supports it via purchase anywhere near the same level as the ones who did it.

And again, I'm all for a serious ass-kickin for the sick (rule 8s) who buy the stuff, perhaps followed by lobotomies. Just not jail and certainly not the same treatment as the ones who did it. And that's not about what I would like to see so much as what I think is legally reasonable and fair, unfortunately. If possessing videos of illegal activities occurring is against the law, there are one helluva lot of people - including a great many TV network execs/schedulers - who belong behind bars. (actually that would probably suit me fine as well)

not at all, but it is the same as saying that someone who pays for a murder to be committed is a murderer, even if they where not physically involve d in the murder.

Nope, invalid analogy, not the same. Again these people didn't go up to the porn makers and say "here's $$ to make some child porn, let me know when it's ready for pick up (etc)." If they had, then your analogy would be correct.

 

[bigred]

Your point is well taken. Certainly there is not very much that is more "obscene" than watching someone have their head hacked off. This is where it gets very confusing and forces us to face some of the distortions in our value systems. I am not talking specifically about child porn here which we would all agree is obscene and exploitive in the very worst sense. But it is true you can still see people literally being killed on TV - not just the simulated killing of TV dramas - and while it is considered unpleasant it is not generally considered obscene. Somehow Janet Jackson's breast is. This is not some tremendous new insight or anything.

As far as child exploitation goes (and it is arguable that it is limited just to child porn) I have always felt that it is important to draw a very clear distinction between those actually abusing the child or contributing to the abuse and those who are merely passive consumers. Whatever you might think of viewing or enjoying this kind of thing - an no doubt we all think it is sick - you can not consider it equivalent to the actual abuse of a child or the facilitation of that abuse. However harshly one feels that passive consumers of this material should be dealt with it stands to reason that those producing or facilitating the production of such material should be dealt with very much more harshly and it should be considered a much more serious offense. If you treat all crimes the same, you eliminate the neccessary distinction between truly horrific behavior and behavior that is, perhaps marginally, less so and perhaps behavior that is significantly less so. By raising one you inevitably lower the other in its unacceptability.

Thank you for saying it a lot better than I did.

 

[Checkmite]

...and yet I never heard anyone say that people who not only downloaded but made FUN of the Nick Berg killing should get so much as a slap on the wrist.

Help me out. There's two things you can be implying with this statement.

1. The people who downloaded the Nick Berg killing should be punished, or at least denigraded,

2. It should not be a criminal offense to commission, purchase, or trade videos of children being raped.

Which one is it? I'm a cut-to-the-chase kind of person.

 

[bigred]

Help me out. There's two things you can be implying with this statement.

1. The people who downloaded the Nick Berg killing should be punished, or at least denigraded,

2. It should not be a criminal offense to commission, purchase, or trade videos of children being raped.

Which one is it? I'm a cut-to-the-chase kind of person.

I thought I was pretty clear but I'll try again: I am saying that the logic of equating people who download child porn w/the ones who actually do it is like equating people who downloaded the Nick Berg killing to the people who actually did it. ie neither IMO are valid.

 

[shemp]

On a lighter note, I first read this thread as:

"600 Americans Busted in Global Warming Porn Ring"

I think anything these days with the word "Global" is gunna throw me.

I will urge my congresswoman to push for funding for a study of the links between global warming and child porn. One theory: It's the heat caused by all the pervs who are yanking it.*

*Disclaimer: I do not mean to suggest that everyone who "yanks it" is a pervert. I believe masturbation is a healthy and wholesome sexual outlet for many people. I myself have been known to "choke the chicken" occasionally when neither Mrs. Shemp nor the goats are available.

 

[Dave1001]

Help me out. There's two things you can be implying with this statement.

1. The people who downloaded the Nick Berg killing should be punished, or at least denigraded,

2. It should not be a criminal offense to commission, purchase, or trade videos of children being raped.

Which one is it? I'm a cut-to-the-chase kind of person.

Well, how does one coherently justify punishment for downloading videos of children being raped, but not adults being beheaded?