Norway and kiddie porn

[Phillybee]

As disgusting as child pornographers are, this seems to go too far, in that it seems that it might inadvertently squelch what might otherwise be noble acts against, or education about, child pornography. Does this new law mean that those who attempt to investigate child pornography will have violated a law? It might make artists who attempt to address this issue criminals (for example interpretive or expository discourse or performances). People who might do this would necessarily "by plan" introduce (for education or awareness) topics about the issue.

In my opinion, we need more resources to fight child pornography, not a bigger legal net. Those involved in the racket would likely violate existing laws (maybe not, I don't know about the laws in your country), but it might be difficult to catch them.

A wider law may only result in the prosecution of innocents or those accidentally guilty, as mentioned by many above. This won't put the makers and users in jail. Although this may pad the stats against the child pornographers, prosecutions of this nature may consume resources that could be used to investigate the more criminal elements of the rackets. In addition, padded figures about crime resolution can foster public indifference and complacency.

Edit to add: was Pete Townshend ever cleared in his involvement in this issue?

One more edit: this stuff is spammed all over USENET. The posters seem to hop usenet providers, and use a new one until their accounts get cancelled. The usenet server admins need to get active on this crap, but, like viruses, the posters probably use zombie machines. What can be done? I'd give up usenet in a second to halt the abuse going on.

 

[Ed]

Or the Phillipines...

But there's a difference between raping a child and reading about it. Or is it just me?

Depends who your are, I guess. I suspect that a convicted pedophile would have some 'splainin' to do. Wasn't there such a case recently?

My point is simply that there may be an international movement afoot to regularize definitions.

 

[Ryokan]

Depends who your are, I guess. I suspect that a convicted pedophile would have some 'splainin' to do. Wasn't there such a case recently?

My point is simply that there may be an international movement afoot to regularize definitions.

Indeed, there was a case recently, involving a 16 years old girl on the Phillipines and a Norwegian tourist.

But I'm not getting the 'depends on who you are' part. There's no difference between raping a child and reading about it if you're a convicted pedophile? Aren't you advocating thought crimes with that?

 

[Ed]

Indeed, there was a case recently, involving a 16 years old girl on the Phillipines and a Norwegian tourist.

But I'm not getting the 'depends on who you are' part. There's no difference between raping a child and reading about it if you're a convicted pedophile? Aren't you advocating thought crimes with that?

We already have thought crimes, they are commonly referred to as "hate crimes" but I digress. My point is that there was a case where they found some stuff that would have been legal in a pedophiles home and locked him up. That is what I mean by "it depends on who you are".

 

[Ryokan]

We already have thought crimes, they are commonly referred to as "hate crimes" but I digress. My point is that there was a case where they found some stuff that would have been legal in a pedophiles home and locked him up. That is what I mean by "it depends on who you are".

For it to be a 'hate crime', you have to commit a crime with 'hate' in mind. I doubt reading about it would suffice.

 

[jay gw]

Why is looking at child porn wrong?

 

[Darat]

Why is looking at child porn wrong?

Because the child in the pornography can not have given (full and informed) consent to be in the pronographic material.

 

[Darat]

So, what would happen if you inadvertently downloaded child porn. And before you laugh, it could happen if you were on a P2P program, and a file had a deceiving name.

Or even a browser hijack to such a site.

 

[Darat]

I applaud the intent behind the law but from what I'e just read about it is seems a bit ill-conceived. At least part of the problem is that legislators are trying to legislate for something new (e.g. PCs and internet) and something that is changing all the time.

I would suggest that what is needed is to look and understand more closely what behaviours society is trying to stop (or modify) and then construct legislations based on those principles, with that understanding in place it should then be possible to apply them to any situation, whether that is old or new technology.

 

[jay gw]

Because the child in the pornography can not have given (full and informed) consent to be in the pronographic material.

How do you know what happens behind the pictures you look at?

 

[Bjorn]

How do you know what happens behind the pictures you look at?

Isn't it sufficient to know what happens in the pictures you look at?

 

[skepticality]

quote:
Originally posted by jay gw
Why is looking at child porn wrong?

Because the child in the pornography can not have given (full and informed) consent to be in the pronographic material.

Yes, but you should always go after the originator of the pictures, not the consumers. There are FAR too many different ways a person could 'accidentally' have a picture on their computer. To make a law which assumes guilt, in some way, for 'looking' at something, is a terrible, terrible, thing.

In a just society you would go find the people that took the picture, PROVE that the participants were under age, then prosecute those that produced said photos. Not the people looking at their twisted creations. As 'disturbing' as you might find folks that look at something like child pornography, I don't believe in thought crimes. And arresting someone for looking at a picture is, at heart, a thought crime.

 

[Darat]

How do you know what happens behind the pictures you look at?

Well for a start I don’t look at those types of pictures.

However the point is that we (i.e. society) have decided that children cannot give consent for sex therefore if a child is involved in something that is of a sexual nature then that child is taking part without full and informed consent, it is an assault on the child.

 

[Darat]

Yes, but you should always go after the originator of the pictures, not the consumers. There are FAR too many different ways a person could 'accidentally' have a picture on their computer. To make a law which assumes guilt, in some way, for 'looking' at something, is a terrible, terrible, thing.

In a just society you would go find the people that took the picture, PROVE that the participants were under age, then prosecute those that produced said photos. Not the people looking at their twisted creations. As 'disturbing' as you might find folks that look at something like child pornography, I don't believe in thought crimes. And arresting someone for looking at a picture is, at heart, a thought crime.

I believe that you can be in a position where you see and look at pornographic pictures involving children without any intent to do so.

However to knowingly seek out those types of pictures should be wrong since you are saying you want a child to be assaulted for your sexually pleasure.

 

[skepticality]

However the point is that we (i.e. society) have decided that children cannot give consent for sex therefore if a child is involved in something that is of a sexual nature then that child is taking part without full and informed consent, it is an assault on the child.

Agreed, now go find the person that committed the crime, not the person looking at the result of the crime.

It's the equivalent of arresting the person that found the dead body at a murder scene. Just because you are looking at the result of a depraved individual, doesn't make you a murderer.

 

[skepticality]

However to knowingly seek out those types of pictures should be wrong since you are saying you want a child to be assaulted for your sexually pleasure.

Exactly my point, you can't prove what someone is thinking, and there are over 1,000 reasons that someone could claim as a reason for the pictures being in their possession. And, at the end of the day, you are still attempting to prove what someone is THINKING. Hence, that's a thought crime.

Spend the time, effort, and resources of law enforcement on the people creating the problem. Cut it off at the source. It's been proven time and time again, that arresting the users of a 'bad' product does nothing but fill jails and waste money. Never solves any problem in society.

 

[Darat]

Agreed, now go find the person that committed the crime, not the person looking at the result of the crime.

It's the equivalent of arresting the person that found the dead body at a murder scene. Just because you are looking at the result of a depraved individual, doesn't make you a murderer.

A nearer equivalence would be arresting someone for having sex with the dead body they discovered, a different but still illegal activity.

 

[Darat]

Exactly my point, you can't prove what someone is thinking, and there are over 1,000 reasons that someone could claim as a reason for the pictures being in their possession. And, at the end of the day, you are still attempting to prove what someone is THINKING. Hence, that's a thought crime.

The legal system is based on the premise of not knowing but proving that a crime has been committed beyond a certain level of doubt.

Spend the time, effort, and resources of law enforcement on the people creating the problem. Cut it off at the source. It's been proven time and time again, that arresting the users of a 'bad' product does nothing but fill jails and waste money. Never solves any problem in society.

If there was not a market for the pornography would they still be made? I would not be surprised to hear that at least some of the providers of this type of pornography are not strictly speaking paedophiles, just "business people".

If we consider paedophilia to be behaviour our society doesn’t wish to tolerate then it is the people who express that behaviour that we have to target, whether that is the producer or the consumer.

 

[curi0us]

We already have thought crimes, they are commonly referred to as "hate crimes" but I digress.

All the hate crime laws I know of add an additional penalty to a crime that was already committed and it’s been a longstanding part of our justice system that a persons thoughts relating to a crime can be pertinent to the penalty they receive. First degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter can all be determined by the “thoughts” of the killer and those are hardly unique crimes in that regard.

 

[richardm]

Edit to add: was Pete Townshend ever cleared in his involvement in this issue?

Kind of not really, ish. He was cautioned by the police, which effectively means they thought he was guilty but they didn't have any evidence to prosecute him with (they found no photos in his house or on any of his computers). Even so he was placed on the sex offender's register, which means he must register with the police every year, or if he moves house, with the threat of a five-year prison stretch if he doesn't. Witch hunt indeed.

Edited to add: link about it.