600 Americans Busted In Global Child Porn Ring

[Megalodon]

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.

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.

I know, it's bad form to quote oneself... so sue me!

 

[Checkmite]

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.

Right. So, it isn't blackmail if, rather than extorting money from someone in hopes that you won't reveal the secret, you instead charge for confidentiality services already rendered.

Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

Again, the people who "only download" the stuff are not as bad and should not be punished as harshly as those who produce it. But I take issue with people who seem to equate "not punished as harshly" with "not harsh at all". These people belong in jail for a bit. It's not as if they saw a picture of a kid in the National Geographic and got off on it; this material is tailormade specifically for these people, specifically for this reason. Whether these people pay the pornographers or not, those kids were photographed being raped solely in order to satisfy them.

So, lets change the analogy. Why does "freedom of speech" not protect screaming "Fire" in a crowded public place, if a panic and subsequent injuries occur?

 

[Ian Osborne]

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.

Apples and oranges. Nick Berg wasn't killed specifically to make a for-profit video.

 

[bigred]

Right. So, it isn't blackmail if, rather than extorting money from someone in hopes that you won't reveal the secret, you instead charge for confidentiality services already rendered.

Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

? Not the same thing either. In both cases above there is a direct business relationship between the 2.

And I was thinking of this too....why does everyone assume this is ONLY about money? I think there are some of these people who are so freakin sick that they would do this even if there were no monetary gain to be had (although of course money to be made doubtless increases the overall production of it).

Again, the people who "only download" the stuff are not as bad and should not be punished as harshly as those who produce it. But I take issue with people who seem to equate "not punished as harshly" with "not harsh at all".

So do I.

These people belong in jail for a bit.

I disagree for reasons already stated above...

this material is tailormade specifically for these people, specifically for this reason. Whether these people pay the pornographers or not, those kids were photographed being raped solely in order to satisfy them.

Bingo, thank you. To repeat: this would've happened whether these people pay the pornographers or not.[/QUOTE]

So, lets change the analogy. Why does "freedom of speech" not protect screaming "Fire" in a crowded public place, if a panic and subsequent injuries occur?

This analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Apples and oranges. Nick Berg wasn't killed specifically to make a for-profit video.

So you differentiate people who do an illegal act for money vs for their desires? So there should be a legal difference between someone who produces child porn for money, as opposed to someone who produces it for their own personal reasons and does not receive money from it?

 

[bigred]

Apples and oranges. Nick Berg wasn't killed specifically to make a for-profit video.

True enough but that wasn't my point. My point is simply that doing and watching a video of doing are not the same thing by any means.

 

[Ian Osborne]

So you differentiate people who do an illegal act for money vs for their desires? So there should be a legal difference between someone who produces child porn for money, as opposed to someone who produces it for their own personal reasons and does not receive money from it?

We were talking about the consumers, not the producers.

 

[Ian Osborne]

True enough but that wasn't my point. My point is simply that doing and watching a video of doing are not the same thing by any means.

True enough, but as Brodski pointed out re. child porn, if it wasn't for the demand, there wouldn't be the supply, and that's why possessing and distributing it should be illegal. Whatever you think of people who download the Nick Berg video, they're not creating a consumer demand for murder.

 

[Checkmite]

Bingo, thank you. To repeat: this would've happened whether these people pay the pornographers or not.

But you still miss the point. This happens whether "those people" pay or not, certainly - but it also wouldn't happen at all if it weren't for "those people" wanting it to happen. Even those people who are so magnanimous and thoughtfully considerate of their follow child molesters (or aspiring ilk) as to post the material for free are only doing so because people out there want the stuff.

If it weren't for the "mere" consumer, child pornography wouldn't exist - and there would be no producer. Oh, kids would still get molested and raped, certainly. But their faces and their pain wouldn't be out there, getting traded back and forth like Magic cards. The knowledge that this is happening does take a toll on victims. Think of it as adding insult to injury.

This analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

What you really mean here is, "I don't understand the point you're trying to make". Maybe not now, but you will - just humor me.

 

[casebro]

I wonder if there is room here for a porn/actual act study?

The FBI has 600 study subjects. Lets see how many have actually committed actual sex acts with children. If the rate is less than the population at large, then kiddie porn PREVENTS child molestation. Right?

If so, give the producers a medal, they are preventing crimes. Give the 'actors' a medal too, and some counseling.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I wonder if there is room here for a porn/actual act study?

The FBI has 600 study subjects. Lets see how many have actually committed actual sex acts with children. If the rate is less than the population at large, then kiddie porn PREVENTS child molestation. Right?

If so, give the producers a medal, they are preventing crimes. Give the 'actors' a medal too, and some counseling.

Is that you, Genghis?

 

[luchog]

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.

Not quite accurate. Ther'es a legal distinction between "child porn" involving pre-adolescent children, and porn involving post-adolescent minors.

 

[bigred]

But you still miss the point. This happens whether "those people" pay or not, certainly - but it also wouldn't happen at all if it weren't for "those people" wanting it to happen.

I don't miss that point, I deny its validity. There would certainly be less of this going on, but if you think child porn would disappear if nobody bought it, you're kidding yourself.

Even those people who are so magnanimous and thoughtfully considerate of their follow child molesters (or aspiring ilk) as to post the material for free are only doing so because people out there want the stuff.

To a large extent, yes. But to some extent some are also doing it just because they themselves are "into it" ie for their own sick thrills or whatever.

If it weren't for the "mere" consumer, child pornography wouldn't exist - and there would be no producer.

Again not true as I explained above.

Oh, kids would still get molested and raped, certainly. But their faces and their pain wouldn't be out there, getting traded back and forth like Magic cards.

The real tragedy here is the crime, not the fact that others who didn't participate see the crime later. That's sick but hardly comparable to the crime itself. If nobody saw the crime, it is just as horrific.

What you really mean here is, "I don't understand the point you're trying to make". Maybe not now, but you will - just humor me.

Sorry, what I meant was just what I said. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't miss that point, I deny its validity. There would certainly be less of this going on, but if you think child porn would disappear if nobody bought it, you're kidding yourself.

Now you're getting stuck on "people who pay". I'm not referring to them exclusively.

To a large extent, yes. But to some extent some are also doing it just because they themselves are "into it" ie for their own sick thrills or whatever.

No. They keep pictures for themselves because of their own sick thrills. They post them online because they know other people want to see them. That's kind of the only reason anybody posts anything online

The real tragedy here is the crime, not the fact that others who didn't participate see the crime later. That's sick but hardly comparable to the crime itself. If nobody saw the crime, it is just as horrific.

No, you cannot seperate the two. The courts may itemize such a terrible thing for sentencing and bookeeping purposes. But in real life, the abuse itself, along with the act of recording the abuse and distributing the recordings, is ALL part of the same grand offense against that child (or those children, as the case may be). Think big picture here, and do not make the mistake of minimalizing the effect that child pornography has on its victims in order to make the situation easier for you to argue away. Leave that job to folks like....well, nevermind.

Sorry, what I meant was just what I said. Perhaps you could clarify.

A person who induces panic by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (to borrow an overused idiom) may not physically touch a single person. But if his screams incite panic, and people get hurt (or even killed), the fact that he never touched anybody doesn't matter - he's at least partially liable for the consequences of his actions. He doesn't get sent up for murder, but he does pay a penalty.

People who download child pornography, even for free, serve to confirm and reinforce the fact that "there are people out there who want more of this stuff". So the person who would normally "simply" abuse a child for his own benefit (almost spat the word out), decides to upload some photos so his sick friends can cheer him on. If nobody out there wanted child pornography, there would be no incentive for this person to post his photos online. It's really that simple. So yes, the consumers are partially liable, and thus they should have to pay a penalty. And of course they do. Which is how it will stay.

 

[bigred]

Now you're getting stuck on "people who pay". I'm not referring to them exclusively.

I am because that was what started this line of discussion. But you can lump people who get it for free in there too IMO.

No. They keep pictures for themselves because of their own sick thrills. They post them online because they know other people want to see them. That's kind of the only reason anybody posts anything online

You're right. They post it because they know others want it. Again what I'm really getting at is this would happen (generally) whether it was posted on the internet or not, although it would likely happen less.

No, you cannot seperate the two.

It would be ridiculous not to. One more time: watching a crime (even paying to watch it) is NOT the same as doing it. I can't believe that isn't incredibly obvious. Doesn't mean it's necessarily guiltless, but it isn't the same thing. Yet that is how some people here are reacting.

The courts may itemize such a terrible thing for sentencing and bookeeping purposes. But in real life, the abuse itself, along with the act of recording the abuse and distributing the recordings, is ALL part of the same grand offense against that child (or those children, as the case may be).

Certainly. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about other people who did not commit the crime later watching it.

Think big picture here, and do not make the mistake of minimalizing the effect that child pornography has on its victims in order to make the situation easier for you to argue away. Leave that job to folks like....well, nevermind.

?? What on Earth are you talking about? You accuse me of things which are also ridiculous. I was hardly "minimalizing the effect that child pornography has on its victims" or trying to "argue away" the horror of child porn.

A person who induces panic by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (to borrow an overused idiom) may not physically touch a single person. But if his screams incite panic, and people get hurt (or even killed), the fact that he never touched anybody doesn't matter - he's at least partially liable for the consequences of his actions. He doesn't get sent up for murder, but he does pay a penalty.

People who download child pornography, even for free, serve to confirm and reinforce the fact that "there are people out there who want more of this stuff". So the person who would normally "simply" abuse a child for his own benefit (almost spat the word out), decides to upload some photos so his sick friends can cheer him on. If nobody out there wanted child pornography, there would be no incentive for this person to post his photos online. It's really that simple. So yes, the consumers are partially liable, and thus they should have to pay a penalty. And of course they do. Which is how it will stay.

Not a valid analogy. In the first case, a person actually committed the crime of inciting a riot. In the latter, people are watching the crime, not committing it. It would be comparable if you said someone paid to watch pictures of the riot and people dying. In that case, do you think those people should be treated the same as the guy who yelled fire or some nut in the crowd who killed someone in the ensuing riot?

 

[Megalodon]

It would be ridiculous not to. One more time: watching a crime (even paying to watch it) is NOT the same as doing it. I can't believe that isn't incredibly obvious. Doesn't mean it's necessarily guiltless, but it isn't the same thing. Yet that is how some people here are reacting.

I would agree with you. But there is a difference between paying to watch a crime (e.g. on ogrish) and having a crime commited specifically for you to pay to watch.
In one you are paying for people to find footage of a criminal act. In the other one, you are paying for someone to produce footage of a criminal act.

In the first case, a person actually committed the crime of inciting a riot. In the latter, people are watching the crime, not committing it. It would be comparable if you said someone paid to watch pictures of the riot and people dying. In that case, do you think those people should be treated the same as the guy who yelled fire or some nut in the crowd who killed someone in the ensuing riot?

If the people subscribed to a website whose owners caused riots to obtain such footage, then the people should be prosecuted. As harshly as the owners is arguable, but at least as accessories.

 

[bigred]

I would agree with you. But there is a difference between paying to watch a crime (e.g. on ogrish) and having a crime commited specifically for you to pay to watch.
In one you are paying for people to find footage of a criminal act. In the other one, you are paying for someone to produce footage of a criminal act.

Exactly. Further one could argue (and I agree it's dicey but not invalid, at least not legally) that those subscribing to a porn site aren't specifically paying to have porn produced, ie more created, just to have some available....in other words, the "paying customer"

If the people subscribed to a website whose owners caused riots to obtain such footage, then the people should be prosecuted. As harshly as the owners is arguable, but at least as accessories.

I agree, if I understand you correctly. Some of the specifics would make a diff too, eg that is all the web site offered, etc.

 

[Megalodon]

Exactly. Further one could argue (and I agree it's dicey but not invalid, at least not legally) that those subscribing to a porn site aren't specifically paying to have porn produced, ie more created, just to have some available....in other words, the "paying customer"

Dicey indeed . You would need to have at least a breakdown of subscriptions of sites with and without updates for that. I think the argument is unsustainable.
But even if there was not new porn being produced. As long as the persons subscribing it knew it was made with the purpose of being sold to them, they are complicit in the scheme. Just like somebody who receives stolen goods (only in a more serious manner)

I agree, if I understand you correctly. Some of the specifics would make a diff too, eg that is all the web site offered, etc.

I think you did understand. And of course, if the site offered legitimate porn and had the criminal footage in the mix, it would make a lot of difference. But I suspect itwas probably not the case...

 

[Dave1001]

I wonder if there is room here for a porn/actual act study?

The FBI has 600 study subjects. Lets see how many have actually committed actual sex acts with children. If the rate is less than the population at large, then kiddie porn PREVENTS child molestation. Right?

If so, give the producers a medal, they are preventing crimes. Give the 'actors' a medal too, and some counseling.

I suppose from a strict utilitarian sense. Although it would be fairer to compare this population against people who would watch this type child porn if they could but are unable for various reasons (such as lack of internet access), than against the general population.

 

[Checkmite]

It would be ridiculous not to. One more time: watching a crime (even paying to watch it) is NOT the same as doing it. I can't believe that isn't incredibly obvious. Doesn't mean it's necessarily guiltless, but it isn't the same thing. Yet that is how some people here are reacting.

Not the same in the most technical sense. It is still absolutely unconscionable. Which is why they still get punished harshly. I really don't understand why you're going on about this. The difference is obvious - but it's not important. As it stands, people who only collect the stuff DON'T get punished as harshly as people who make the stuff. So I don't see why you feel the need to keep straining this.

Certainly. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about other people who did not commit the crime later watching it.

It's all part of the same offense. The physical injury may stop when the rape itself stops. However, the psychological injury does not - "the crime" isn't done being committed when the rapist leaves the room. The anguish begins when the rape begins, and it continues and is exacerbated as long as the child is aware that other people are ("merely") watching them being raped, over and over and over again, and - just like the rape - there's absolutely NOTHING they can do to stop it from happening. The consumers may not feel as if they're contributing - they objectify children, they don't consider the human component of the images they're watching. But the effect on the child is the same nonetheless.

?? What on Earth are you talking about? You accuse me of things which are also ridiculous. I was hardly "minimalizing the effect that child pornography has on its victims" or trying to "argue away" the horror of child porn.

I'm not accusing, I'm cautioning. You haven't done any of those things yet. It seems to me that you have come close, though, with your repeated insistence that the "horror" of mere child porn is apparently so far removed from any other kind of sexual abuse of children that the people who collect and distribute it don't even deserve a single day in jail.

Not a valid analogy. In the first case, a person actually committed the crime of inciting a riot. In the latter, people are watching the crime, not committing it. It would be comparable if you said someone paid to watch pictures of the riot and people dying. In that case, do you think those people should be treated the same as the guy who yelled fire or some nut in the crowd who killed someone in the ensuing riot?

The people who are only watching are guilty of inciting the continued production and distribution of child pornography.