Raistlin

I agree completely. I do see one potential problem, though. As I understand it, the way the law is now, simply downloading an illegal image is considered production. It's pretty obvious that this isn't what the law was designed for but, as usual, that's not enough to stop prosecutors. How can you be sure the law against 'production' of child pornography won't be turned upside down and used against innocent people?

Also, what incredible irony it is that these girls are being charged as adults. :p

I have never heard that before, so I'm not sure if that's actually the case (and if so, an easy solution is to define "production" in the statute). I do know that the feds will charge each image as a separate offense, so that downloading one torrent of 100 images will result in 100 counts. This has lead to the absurd result of some downloaders receiving much higher sentences for looking at pictures than if they had actually molested a kid.

:D
okay wait.

a minor sent a possibly unsolicited nude pic to an adult and now he has to face charges? Even if that wasn't how it happened, if what I just wrote DID happen, the person would face charges yes? Yes. Of course.

that's great stuff.

I think the pictures were definitely solicited in this case. I don't think unsolicited receipt of the pictures could be charged by itself, but if he then chose to keep them, he could still be charged with possession.

I feel like I need more details on this before I decide whether or not I'm irritated. For awhile, ever time my sister and her boyfriend broke up, he would be posting on Facebooks "who wants nude pic and video of jamie lol lets do coke im such a gang member" and I finally told him if he didn't knock it off I was going to have him charged with child porn.

I would love to see my sister and her boyfriend charged with something and go to jail for awhile. Little assholes.

Just because they both may deserve to be locked up for a while in general doesn't mean that anyone else deserves to be locked up for this, as well as being considered a sex offender for life. What more details do you really need before concluding this is outrageous?

The one thing that bothers me with this whole deal is that paedos get sent to therapy to 'overcome' their desires (whether they'd ever go through on them or not), while people who suggest the same thing for someone of another sexual orientation are inconsiderate bigots. One doesn't pose a danger to kids, I know, but it's the same thing.

:D
and neither can be 'fixed' - though raistlin will harp about how this has nothing to do with his thread <3

Manus, I agree entirely. It's well recognized that trying to force someone to "overcome" their sexual attraction to the same sex is psychologically damaging, as is all sexual repression and coerced guilt tripping. There's really no reason that the same should not apply to pedophilia. In fact, I would argue that pedophilia by itself is no more "wrong" than homosexuality. The mere desire, for which there is no choice or conscious control, is neither good nor bad. Only certain actions based on that desire that harm others can be bad, and there are innocent outlets such as looking at certain porn or having a legal girlfriend dress/act underage are victimless.

And I would actually dispute your implication that pedophiles "pose a danger to kids" simply by virtue of their sexual attraction. During my research for my seminar project, I discovered studies that show that pedophiles really fall under two groups: those who like thinking and looking at images, and those who actually molest kids -- and there isn't much overlap. Furthermore, other research has shown that access and use of pornography actually has a negative correlation with sex crimes. Far from encouraging pedophiles to act on their urges, the (faux) child porn they do download can act as victimless outlet. In that sense, criminalizing simple possession and applying such harsh penalties can even be counter productive.

:D
>porn has negative correlation to sex crimes

I know about this but it always seems...hilariously wrong. But I think you also said it is okay to have adults cosplay and pretend things. I'm going to have to see if I can get away with some requests....

I would think the reasoning behind the image law is supply and demand? A person downloading the image is creating demand for the production of underage/child pornography which is... not a good thing to create child pornography?

I mean I would definitely agree that actually creating the pornography is the worse offense of the two. However viewing the pornography is still active participation in the process. This is a situation in which the consumer has a hand in the exploitation of the subject.

I don't have any issue with a person who has specific desires. In point of fact, I likely would feel a great deal of sympathy toward a person who had desires as succumbing to them would have severe repercussions.

I have a major issue with a person who acts upon their desires in an exploitative manner. A person who views child pornography participates in the process of exploitation.

That being said, there is an enormous difference in a person who seeks out sexually provocative photos of, let's say a 9 year old, and an 18 year-old person who views a sexually provocative photo of their 17 year-old partner provided with the consent of the partner.

Oh wait, you said faux child porn. Even so, my point stands. Besides, if it was demonstrably faux child porn who would be getting in trouble in the first places?

You unwaveringly assert that a person downloading images creates "demand" for the product and "participates in the process of exploitation." I've heard that claim a lot, but have yet to see any actual evidence. Unless there is actual evidence of that in a specific case, that argument is baseless.

I agree whole-heartedly with the notion that people who produce or actively promote the production of child porn should be prosecuted. Obvious example: buying the porn, which at the minimum funds its further distribution (if not the producer himself). But unless you can actually prove that one more anonymous download materially affects its production, our criminal justice system should not be guided by that knee-jerk reaction.

I would not be opposed to a separate crime, in addition to production and distribution, for materially aiding the production or distribution of child porn. That would make affecting production/distribution an element of the crime, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone were then, say, downloading child porn from a specific site that clearly responded to such demand (or hell, even sent an email asking for more), I could maybe see a viable prosecution. But someone who downloads a 5-year-old torrent of 1,000 images from a general torrent site, where 100 of them are underage? No way.