imaginary pedophile

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes you are right. I confused myself. Explicit sexual violence (which child porn is an example of)

I'm being picky, but child porn is only sexual violence if it's violent.

Child porn is illegal whether it's violent or not, and the laws about movie violence have nothing to do with it.

(Before someone gets outraged at the idea that child porn is not necessarily violent, a clear-cut example would be the early pictures and films featuring Traci Lords. They're definitely child porn under the law, but they are not violent by any definition I'm aware of).

 

[Checkmite]

Not a big Ogrish.com fan, then, eh?

Not even a little Ogrish fan - ack!

Of course, the difference here is that there's legal ways to obtain images of other crimes. It's possible (and often occurs) for one to just happen to be on the other side of the street with a camera, completely uninvolved when he suddenly sees a crime being committed and photographs or video tapes it without becoming involved. If I remember right, Ogrish deals in things like autopsy photos, right? Or crime scene photos taken by investigators, etc? These were also legally-produced. So it's not illegal merely to come into possession of such images simply because the depicted images are of illegal activities. Child pornography, however, does not enjoy the same caveat. The images simply cannot be obtained by legitimate means; sexual assault or molestation of children isn't something that happens on a street corner where an innocent passerby with a camcorder can suddenly switch on his camera and record the activity without getting involved. Yes, yes - I know somebody is out there just itching to point out that this is theoretically possible; but no such hypothetical scenarios describe the reality of what child pornography is. Quite simply - there's legal and innocent ways to create images of many crimes-in-progress; it just so happens that it's not possible with child pornography.

Why is this important to anyone besides producers? Again, go back to my equation with "receipt of stolen property". Is it legal to own a car? Yes. Is it legal to buy a car, or accept a car as a gift, from a friend or a family member? Yes. Is it legal to buy/accept a car that you know for a fact was stolen? No. Doing so makes you an accessory and subject to legal action. If you are aware the car is contraband, you're not permitted, legally, to take possession of it. Same thing with child pornography. It just so happens that there is absolutely no way it could've been produced legally, and everybody knows it. Therefore, an "end user", "consumer", "collector", or whatever one chooses to call it, is knowingly taking possession of contraband and of course is thus committing a crime. Quite simple, really.

 

[D'rok]

Covered over here; to wit, throwing someone in jail for drawings or stories is dumb.

To the linked post, though, I'd like to append that it's pedophilia - the whole sexual attraction to children thing - that bothers me; to me it's repugnant whether the pedophile uses real kiddy porn, or comic-style drawings of adults having sex with kids, or plain text stories of same as an outlet. However, last I checked, my finding a certain behavior repugnant doesn't make that behavior illegal. All the same, if I know someone's a pedophile, I can't pretend it doesn't bother me just because they haven't diddled any kids yet, because it does. Mea culpa. But...

Real child pornography is illegal because people are actually harmed by it, in one way or another. Nobody is really harmed by drawings or text stories. I know some have tried to justify making them illegal by claiming that they "encourage" pedophiles to try things with real kids, but I find that notion spurious - just as spurious as the opposite notion, that the material prevents child abuse by "giving potential offenders an alternative outlet". The way I see it, someone who isn't of a mind to actually harm a child won't be convinced to do it by a comic book, and if someone IS of a mind to actually harm a child, a comic book would never be enough to keep them from acting on their hankering.

I mostly agree. But I still think the production = legal while distribution = illegal stance (which is the current state of the law in Canada) is defensible, even if not entirely justified.

 

[INRM]

I think a person is allowed to fantasize about whatever they want so long as they don't act upon it. I think it's a bit extreme to lock a person up for what they fantasize -- what next? Thought crimes?

As for the Ohio Sex Offender Registry, I find that seriously troublesome, especially when one has to only convince a judge, not a jury


INRM

 

[slingblade]

If I ever want to write the story of what happened to me as a child, I would write the whole story. And in so doing, I would apparently be creating child pornography.

Thus, as a survivor, I cannot legally tell my story.

This is wrong.

 

[D'rok]

If I ever want to write the story of what happened to me as a child, I would write the whole story. And in so doing, I would apparently be creating child pornography.

Thus, as a survivor, I cannot legally tell my story.

This is wrong.

That is an incorrect interpretation of the law. (Still talking Canadian law here, given the context of the OP). Your story would have to "advocate or counsel sexual activity with a person under the age of 18" (R v Sharpe) in order to count as child porn. And you would have to distribute it to be charged criminally. Obviously, given these criteria, your written account of childhood trauma is neither pornographic nor criminal.

The law is not designed to punish victims.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That is an incorrect interpretation of the law. (Still talking Canadian law here, given the context of the OP). Your story would have to "advocate or counsel sexual activity with a person under the age of 18" (R v Sharpe) in order to count as child porn. And you would have to distribute it to be charged criminally. Obviously, given these criteria, your written account of childhood trauma is neither pornographic nor criminal.

The law is not designed to punish victims.

Mind you the age of general consent here in Queensland, Australia is sixteen. So if I wrote any positive portrayal of what local kids get up to all the time that would also be a criminal offence in Canada, I'm guessing.

If I could dig up some sex ed material used in Queensland schools that could get me jailed in Canada that would be pretty funny.

 

[D'rok]

Mind you the age of general consent here in Queensland, Australia is sixteen. So if I wrote any positive portrayal of what local kids get up to all the time that would also be a criminal offence in Canada, I'm guessing.

No. Bad guess. (BTW: Age of consent was just raised from 14 to 16 here. Damn Conservatives).

If I could dig up some sex ed material used in Queensland schools that could get me jailed in Canada that would be pretty funny.

It would be funny if it were true. It's mildly amusing that you seem to think it's true.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No. Bad guess. (BTW: Age of consent was just raised from 14 to 16 here. Damn Conservatives).

Sorry, but you stated that the law criminalises writings that (among other criteria) advocate or counsel sex with someone under eighteen.

So even if the age of consent is sixteen, according to what you have written someone could still get arrested for writing a story which advocates or counsels perfectly legal sex between under-eighteens.

It would be funny if it were true. It's mildly amusing that you seem to think it's true.

Don't blame me, I'm just going by what you've posted.

 

[slingblade]

That is an incorrect interpretation of the law. (Still talking Canadian law here, given the context of the OP). Your story would have to "advocate or counsel sexual activity with a person under the age of 18" (R v Sharpe) in order to count as child porn. And you would have to distribute it to be charged criminally. Obviously, given these criteria, your written account of childhood trauma is neither pornographic nor criminal.

The law is not designed to punish victims.

I hope you understand that since I know my own story all too well, the only reason for writing it down would absolutely be to distribute it. I've really no need to write it down just to keep it private.

As to its "advocating or counseling..." that might be up to someone's interpretation. Certainly what I would tell would be titilating to a pedophile, I have no doubt. And certain things I might say, being true and an important part of the story, could be seen as "advocating." Not by me, but it woudn't be up to me, would it?

I'd rather know how US law would treat it. I don't live in Canada.

 

[D'rok]

I hope you understand that since I know my own story all too well, the only reason for writing it down would absolutely be to distribute it. I've really no need to write it down just to keep it private.

As to its "advocating or counseling..." that might be up to someone's interpretation. Certainly what I would tell would be titilating to a pedophile, I have no doubt. And certain things I might say, being true and an important part of the story, could be seen as "advocating." Not by me, but it woudn't be up to me, would it?

I'd rather know how US law would treat it. I don't live in Canada.

You would be free to write it and distribute it here. Your story would not meet the definition of child pornography.

 

[D'rok]

Sorry, but you stated that the law criminalises writings that (among other criteria) advocate or counsel sex with someone under eighteen.

You are confusing the age of consent with the age of majority. Can an 17 year old do porn in Australia? I just did some *ahem* "research", and it doesn't look like it - you have to be 18.

So even if the age of consent is sixteen, according to what you have written someone could still get arrested for writing a story which advocates or counsels perfectly legal sex between under-eighteens.

Nope. Does the bolded word help you see why?

Don't blame me, I'm just going by what you've posted.

Do always come to such firm conclusions based on so little information?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

That's a tough one. On the one hand he's sick in the head but on the other, we can't be putting people in jail for thought crimes.

"role playing which crossed over the criminal line."

While your at it you might as well jail everyone who has engaged in rape or schoolgirl fantasies.

If he fantasizes about molesting an 11-year-old daughter, he is most likely a very, very dangerous predator who shouldn't be let within 100 yards of a child, especially a girl.

Maybe it's a very good thing he's in prison, where he can do no harm. And that after jail, he'll forever be known to the police. And have a criminal record. And that his neighbors will be warned against him. And that he'll have parole or some Megan's Law type restrictions.

Maybe the only difference between him and a child abuser is that he hasn't yet had the opportunity to do what he has always wanted to do and has never had the means, except in his mind. Maybe if he had ever had a daughter, he'd have long since molested her.

 

[quixotecoyote]

If he fantasizes about molesting an 11-year-old daughter, he is most likely a very, very dangerous predator who shouldn't be let within 100 yards of a child, especially a girl.

Maybe it's a very good thing he's in prison, where he can do no harm. And that after jail, he'll forever be known to the police. And have a criminal record. And that his neighbors will be warned against him. And that he'll have parole or some Megan's Law type restrictions.

Maybe the only difference between him and a child abuser is that he hasn't yet had the opportunity to do what he has always wanted to do and has never had the means, except in his mind. Maybe if he had ever had a daughter, he'd have long since molested her.

If "maybe" and "most likely" is all it takes, I think we're going to need to expand the prison system.

 

[chillzero]

If he fantasizes about molesting an 11-year-old daughter, he is most likely a very, very dangerous predator who shouldn't be let within 100 yards of a child, especially a girl.

"If" .. indeed.
Tell me, do you think that Stephen King should be in prison - more for his writing as Bachmann?



What about me? I'm a horror writer, and several of my tales have resulted from a fantasy of doing terrible things to someone ... someone I actually know... and yet .... I'm a pacifist.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are confusing the age of consent with the age of majority. Can an 17 year old do porn in Australia? I just did some *ahem* "research", and it doesn't look like it - you have to be 18.

I'm not sure what game you think you are playing here. Are you denying that according to your own statements, you could get jailed in Canada for writing something which could be taken to advocate sex acts which are perfectly legal both in Canada and Australia?

 

[D'rok]

I'm not sure what game you think you are playing here. Are you denying that according to your own statements, you could get jailed in Canada for writing something which could be taken to advocate sex acts which are perfectly legal both in Canada and Australia?

The "game" that I am playing is called "holding out the naive hope that an honest discussion can occur about a controversial topic on the Internet." Silly me.

I suggest you produce some porn with a minor aged 16-17 and then get back to us on how your criminal code deals with porn involving sex acts that are, as you say, "perfectly legal." Otherwise, please try to engage in the actual issue at hand.

The relevant question is: are stories and drawings child porn in the same way that photos and videos are? There is a good argument to be made that no, they are not. That line has been drawn in Canadian law - i.e., stories and drawings are treated differently than photos and videos. The relevant question then becomes: are they being treated differently enough - i.e., has the line been drawn properly? There is a good argument to be made that the line has been drawn too severely. There is also a good argument that the line has been drawn correctly.

If you want to have that discussion, I'm game. Otherwise, best of luck to you.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Should Ian Anderson be looking over his shoulder?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

If "maybe" and "most likely" is all it takes, I think we're going to need to expand the prison system.

Most police officers, parole officers, psychologists specializing in pedophilia, parents and social workers would probably agree that the above are legitimate concerns. And that this man probably is a pedophile, whether he has ever, in his entire life, molested a young girl or not.

Now, "valid concerns" don't equate to "crime" but they might, in the near or far future. They also might never, that's true...but this guy's fantasies and online activities probably should be taken into account if he ever, say, moves into a neighborhood where there's an elementary school or applies to be a school bus driver.

"If" .. indeed.
Tell me, do you think that Stephen King should be in prison - more for his writing as Bachmann?

What about me? I'm a horror writer, and several of my tales have resulted from a fantasy of doing terrible things to someone ... someone I actually know... and yet .... I'm a pacifist.

There's a difference between fiction and fantasy. And there's a difference between far fetched fantasy and realizable fantasy. Someone's desire to be part of the Enterprise crew is different from his desire to commit incest.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The "game" that I am playing is called "holding out the naive hope that an honest discussion can occur about a controversial topic on the Internet." Silly me.

Accusing people of dishonesty seems a bit much. In what way have I been dishonest?

I suggest you produce some porn with a minor aged 16-17 and then get back to us on how your criminal code deals with porn involving sex acts that are, as you say, "perfectly legal." Otherwise, please try to engage in the actual issue at hand.

It seems to me you are ducking the actual point.

If I write some purely fictional pornographic text, about purely fictional teenagers having sex, in such ways as would be perfectly legal if real teenagers of their age were doing it, it can be illegal. Right?

You seem to be equating the act of making up fiction with the act of getting two real people to boink on camera. I'm pretty sure there are very significant differences between the two acts, both legally and morally.

In any case I think that having a different age of consent for boinking on and off camera is a bit silly. If you're old enough to risk HIV with a potential date rapist in the back of a car, you're old enough to have sex with a thoroughly-tested partner in front of multiple cameras.

The only reason to make a legal difference that I can take seriously is the "people look down on porn performers, so it's a bad idea to take part in porn if you could have a better career". However I'm generally very much against laws meant to "protect" people from judgmental idiots by preventing them from offending judgmental idiots.

The relevant question is: are stories and drawings child porn in the same way that photos and videos are? There is a good argument to be made that no, they are not. That line has been drawn in Canadian law - i.e., stories and drawings are treated differently than photos and videos. The relevant question then becomes: are they being treated differently enough - i.e., has the line been drawn properly? There is a good argument to be made that the line has been drawn too severely. There is also a good argument that the line has been drawn correctly.

So what are you disagreeing with me about?

If you want to have that discussion, I'm game. Otherwise, best of luck to you.

I thought that was the discussing we were having, but you seem hell-bent on taking offence at who-knows-what.