Only a matter of time before you get jailed for merely having a dirty thought... :o

Karl Hungus

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

my view which you quoted, that i dont know why anyone would try to defend it. That quote was in relation to anyone trying to create or achieve, a picture or fantasy of a minor in a sexual light.

I still do not see how you can defend that. If you want to be my guest. Thats my view.

I was not talking with regard to what teenagers do, regarding your article, or definitions of child porn.

My points with regards to what teenagers do, articles linked, and definitions, are all to do with how I could defend it. Because child porn laws exist to protect children from being abused and exploited by pornographers, the children themselves are victims. A drawing, cartoon, painting, or any other depiction has no victim.

K-9

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I absolutely do not defend any actual child porn. There's a victim involved there. There is abuse implicit in an adult pornographer exploiting minors, that's why such laws exist. But slapping the 'victim' (a minor who took a picture of themselves) with severe criminal charges is a step too far. There's no victim involved in a drawing. I think this article is fairly important to this discussion, and illustrates how vague and over the top a lot of child porn laws are becoming, and how fuzzy those definitions are.

OK, the law is an ass.

Still, I think possession of cartoon representations of child porn should be illegal.

thelordofcheese

Fink Goddie wrote: »

When has a statement in AH ever needed back up, this is not a court of law my friend.

this is true, but people are far more likely to take you seriously if you can back up what you say.

As for the rest, "abloo, abloo my opinions", fine, have all the opinions you want, more power to you. Just don't expect people to not think less of you if they find your opinions repugnant.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

My points with regards to what teenagers do, articles linked, and definitions, are all to do with how I could defend it. Because child porn laws exist to protect children from being abused and exploited by pornographers, the children themselves are victims. A drawing, cartoon, painting, or any other depiction has no victim.

I'd agree with this, laws exist mainly to protect people. In the case of hentai (which isn't even close to being a realistic depiction of human anatomy) who is the law meant to protect in this case?

walshb

seamus wrote: »

It's an offence to be in possession of any image which depicts a child engaged in activity of a sexual nature, basically.

"In possession" I guess doesn't require you to own it or it be in any particular format. However, glancing at a picture in a shop window (for example) is not a crime. In terms of surfing the web, data is cached, so if the Gardai can bring up an illegal image from you cache, then you are "in possession" of said image. With IE/Firefox caches of typically 0.5GB nowadays, anyone who likes to surf this kind of stuff may be at risk.

As far as I am concerned, adults should be allowed view absolutely anything they want. The criminal is the person committing the act on the child and the person or persons
involved in the actual acts. Go get these guys! If child porn is out there and viewable, then to view it should not be a crime. Like I said, I personally wouldn't be able to view it, but that is just me.

K-9

Karl Hungus wrote: »

My points with regards to what teenagers do, articles linked, and definitions, are all to do with how I could defend it. Because child porn laws exist to protect children from being abused and exploited by pornographers, the children themselves are victims. A drawing, cartoon, painting, or any other depiction has no victim.

It doesn't. Say somebody has a depiction or cartoon of the exact same child porn, that is still child porn. Child porn is illegal, not just the abuse.

The problem is people would then see this type of child porn as ok and justify it as such because it isn't illegal.

LouOB

walshb wrote: »

If child porn is out there and viewable, then to view it should not be a crime. .

serious?

what if it was your child?

johnny_knoxvile

Karl Hungus wrote: »

My points with regards to what teenagers do, articles linked, and definitions, are all to do with how I could defend it. Because child porn laws exist to protect children from being abused and exploited by pornographers, the children themselves are victims. A drawing, cartoon, painting, or any other depiction has no victim.

the cartoon has no victim. Why anyone would want to depict children in a sexual manner? (my point, how can you defend that, im not discussing the point of Law)

In MY OWN opinion, victimless or not that is morally wrong and pretty disturbing.

As with this case, it was not just fantasy, he was in possession of child porn.

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, adults should be allowed view absolutely anything they want. The criminal is the person committing the act on the child and the person or persons
involved in the actual acts. Go get these guys! If child porn is out there and viewable, then to view it should not be a crime. Like I said, I personally wouldn't be able to view it, but that is just me.

This comes with the argument that the demand for childporn drives the people who commit and photo said acts. Basically if there is a market for it, someone will step up and supply it.

Arresting the viewer is effectively trying to crush the demand and ergo reduce the supply.
Think the war on drugs only with less people and money.

K-9 wrote: »

It doesn't. Say somebody has a depiction or cartoon of the exact same child porn, that is still child porn. Child porn is illegal, not just the abuse.

i would imagine child porn is illegal BECAUSE of the abuse, but that's just me

walshb

LouOB wrote: »

serious?

what if it was your child?

Yes, to view something, how the hell is that a crime and where does one
draw the line? We view/see crime every day of the week on
the television and nobody is prosecuted.

How can viewing OR seeing be a crime?

If I click on my google search for these images and they pop up and I view them, what
exact crime have I committed?

So, all those who logged in to watch beheadings, what should be
done with them?

Now, participating in the acts is where the crime is!

Karl Hungus

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'd agree with this, laws exist mainly to protect people. In the case of hentai (which isn't even close to being a realistic depiction of human anatomy) who is the law meant to protect in this case?

Exactly. It's like comparing a snuff movie to one of the Guinea Pig films. One is a very real thing where there's a victim of a crime, and the other is just a depiction that you could buy on Amazon.

Fink Goddie

thelordofcheese wrote: »

this is true, but people are far more likely to take you seriously if you can back up what you say.

As for the rest, "abloo, abloo my opinions", fine, have all the opinions you want, more power to you. Just don't expect people to not think less of you if they find your opinions repugnant.

I did back up my opinion in the michael jackson thread, hanging a child off a balcony and thinking your peter pan is back up enough. If he was a normal guy and not MJ people would agree but because he sings a few songs people like they get their back up.

Some people agree with my opinions, some might think they're repugnant, but thats life, we cant all have the same opinion and if we were all banned from having a different opinion there would be no boards.ie

You're dragging this thread off topic, something i got in trouble for doing in the zimmer gang thread.

back on topic please Lordofcheese, stop obsessing over me and everything i say, i know u love me but this is ridiculous xxx

seamus

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This comes with the argument that the demand for childporn drives the people who commit and photo said acts. Basically if there is a market for it, someone will step up and supply it.

Arresting the viewer is effectively trying to crush the demand and ergo reduce the supply.
Think the war on drugs only with less people and money.

This is probably the "gateway" argument in a different guise. There's nothing to say that someone can enjoy depictions of child porn, while at the same time realising that actual child porn causes grief and suffering, therefore they avoid actual child porn and opt for cartoons. In much the same way that people buy fair trade coffee I guess.

You can apply the same criteria to other non-illegal forms of "weird" porn, such as torture porn or rape porn. They depict events in a simulated manner - events which would be illegal if they actually occurred. The argument exists that some people enjoy these forms of porn without any desire to mimic the actions in real life and actively working to avoid "real" images.

K-9

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This comes with the argument that the demand for childporn drives the people who commit and photo said acts. Basically if there is a market for it, someone will step up and supply it.

Arresting the viewer is effectively trying to crush the demand and ergo reduce the supply.
Think the war on drugs only with less people and money.



i would imagine child porn is illegal BECAUSE of the abuse, but that's just me

The consuming of drugs is illegal, not just the supply.

johnny_knoxvile

thelordofcheese wrote: »

this is true, but people are far more likely to take you seriously if you can back up what you say.

As for the rest, "abloo, abloo my opinions", fine, have all the opinions you want, more power to you. Just don't expect people to not think less of you if they find your opinions repugnant.

is that a general sweeping statement of your own? Or can you support that?

My name is URL

walshb wrote: »

Yes, to view something, how the hell is that a crime and where does one
draw the line? We view/see crime every day of the week on
the television and nobody is prosecuted.

How can viewing OR seeing be a crime?

If I click on my google search for these images and they pop up and I view them, what
exact crime have I committed?

Now, participating in the acts is where the crime is!

Unless you deliberately save the image on more than a few occasions I doubt you'd be prosecuted. Most cases involve people who actively share pictures of child abuse in large numbers, and visit sites intentionally for that purpose.

thelordofcheese

seamus wrote: »

This is probably the "gateway" argument in a different guise. There's nothing to say that someone can enjoy depictions of child porn, while at the same time realising that actual child porn causes grief and suffering, therefore they avoid actual child porn and opt for cartoons. In much the same way that people buy fair trade coffee I guess.

of course, my bad - i should have made it clear i was refering explicitly to 'real' child porn with that post. As far as i'm concerned hentai child porn is legally fine. Morally... well your millage may vary on that.

K-9 wrote: »

The consuming of drugs is illegal, not just the supply.

Not like with like though. A closer example would be snuff films, i'd imagine. They are illegal because killing someone is illegal - not the other way around.

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

is that a general sweeping statement of your own?

nope, but thanks for playing.

Fink Goddie

Anyone remember the case in Ireland where a load of employees in an insurance company got sacked for sharing images of Lisa and Bart Simpson that were viewed as child porn??

walshb

My name is URL wrote: »

Unless you deliberately save the image on more than a few occasions I doubt you'd be prosecuted. Most cases involve people who actively share pictures of child abuse in large numbers, and visit sites intentionally for that purpose.

I know what you mean. I think it's the actual downloading that is the problem; but it can be tricky, because maybe a person viewed images, clicked the 'x' to get rid of the image, yet it was saved to cache?

I am not a tech expert, but if an image is displayed and viewed and the person then
clicks the 'x' to close the image, does this image get stored somewhere that it can be retrieved without
the user knowing this?

K-9

seamus wrote: »

You can apply the same criteria to other non-illegal forms of "weird" porn, such as torture porn or rape porn. They depict events in a simulated manner - events which would be illegal if they actually occurred. The argument exists that some people enjoy these forms of porn without any desire to mimic the actions in real life and actively working to avoid "real" images.

I can see the point there alright. I suppose the underlying assumption is there that it is fantasy porn and it's consenting adults.

I suppose you could argue this is similar. If it's sexual depictions of 5/6 year olds it tends to blur that line though.

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

I am not a tech expert, but if an image is displayed and viewed and the person then
clicks the 'x' to close the image, does this image get stored?

Yup, and deleting a file doesn't get rid of it either. Ain't technology grand

My name is URL

walshb wrote: »

I know what you mean. I think it's the actual downloading that is the problem; but it can be tricky, because maybe a person viewed images, clicked the 'x' to get rid of the image, yet it was saved to cache?

I am not a tech expert, but if an image is displayed and viewed and the person then
clicks the 'x' to close the image, does this image get stored?

Yeah, once the image loads from a site it's stored in the cache/downloaded.

I've witnessed problems arising from that fact in the past, with copyrighted videos. Apparently watching them online is legal but downloading them is illegal.

Stupid really because either way it needs to be downloaded

walshb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Yup, and deleting a file doesn't get rid of it either. Ain't technology grand

Okay, so if this is the case, can you be prosecuted?

This isn't intentional downloading. I disagree that a person
should be prosecuted for simply viewing an image that is there to be viewed and that
other persons can view with immunity. Jurors, judges, cops and social workers
view these images and nobody says anything and it's all down to being
part of their job. I think it's grossly unfair that they can
hide behind the safety of the 'job' and someone else is then
prosecuted for viewing the same images they are viewing!

It's like the film censor. A bunch of people sit and watch films all day and then
have the gall to censor the adult population on what is and isn't fit
for viewing.

One other query, does a credit card or money have to be exchanged
for a prosecution? This is when it becomes a crime IMO!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

seamus wrote: »

It's worth noting that here in Ireland it is actually illegal to have images of child pornography, whether or not they contain real children.

That includes Hentai or Animé. It also includes women posing as children. So if you have a model/porn actress playing an underage girl (as opposed to just dressing in a school uniform or wearing pigtails), then yes you can be done for child pornography. Even if the woman is in her 30's.

It's a weird one and a tough one to call.

WTF?

How can it be child porn if she is in her 30's? That is a fcuking nutty law.

Now another thing. Those of us with children may have taken photos of them in their nip... is it bad? Does that make you a pedo now? The world has gond PC mad... it really has...

K-9

My name is URL wrote: »

Yeah, once the image loads from a site it's stored in the cache/downloaded.

I've witnessed problems arising from that fact in the past, with copyrighted videos. Apparently watching them online is legal but downloading them is illegal.

Stupid really because either way it needs to be downloaded

Could you go to the Cache location and just view it there?*

*Probably stupid question! Just thinking as long as you haven't physically downloaded it into a media player or something, it would be a way around it.

johnny_knoxvile

thelordofcheese wrote: »

nope, but thanks for playing.

your welcome!

Galvasean

So say hypothetically I was surfing the web looking for some proper adults only porno and while browsing I skimmed past some links to child porn would I be accountable?

My name is URL

K-9 wrote: »

Could you go to the Cache location and just view it there?*

*Probably stupid question! Just thinking as long as you haven't physically downloaded it into a media player or something, it would be a way around it.

Yeah, it's saved as a normal viewable file once it loads. Unless you empty your cache, it's considered downloaded.

Here's a good add-on for FF that allows you to easilly view everything in your cache

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

Okay, so if this is the case, can you be prosecuted?

This isn't intentional downloading.

the problem would be proving intent, how do you tell that it wasn't just a quick "i wonder what this i--OHGODMYEYESCLOSECLOSECLOSE!" and someone getting their rocks off. Law and technology aren't always the closest, so i imagine they make possesion (regardless of intent) a crime in the hope that they'd catch as many actual paedophiles as possible.
The downside of this approach is obvious.

walshb wrote: »

I disagree that a person
should be prosecuted for simply viewing an image that is there to be viewed and that
other persons can view with immunity. Jurors, judges, cops and social workers
view these images and nobody says anything and it's all down to being
part of their job. I think it's grossly unfair that they can
hide behind the safety of the 'job' and someone else is then
prosecuted for viewing the same images they are viewing!

It's like the film censor. A bunch of people sit and watch films all day and then
have the gall to censor the adult population on what is and isn't fit
for viewing.

that's a whole other argument and i think it's a bit childish to go "well THEY do it, lemmie at it" when the people you're citing do it for a living as opposed to for pleasure.

walshb wrote: »

One other query, does a credit card or money have to be exchanged
for a prosecution? This is when it becomes a crime IMO!

I doubt it essential, but that would prove intent.

walshb

Galvasean wrote: »

So say hypothetically I was surfing the web looking for some proper adults only porno and while browsing I skimmed past some links to child porn would I be accountable?

You shouldn't be as you have committed no crime and even if you intentionally view, you
still have done no wrong. Should you start to download and use cash to pay for such images, then you are crossing the line I would say

walshb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

that's a whole other argument and i think it's a bit childish to go "well THEY do it, lemmie at it" when the people you're citing do it for a living as opposed to for pleasure.
t.

Well, it is gonna' be very hard to prove a person viewed an image for pleasure. How do you prove it and what is the difference between members of the gardai or judiciary or jurors viewing it and the person being prosecuted for viewing it.

All are viewing, so why is ONE person different from the rest of the viewers?

Like I said, when you start paying or requesting with payment for these images, this is when I see a crime!