The Thread That Cannot Speak Its Own Name

[bartl]

The basis (at least according to the SCOTUS) on which child pornography fails a 1st Amendment test (remember, popular speech doesn't need protection) is because it makes those trading in it accessories after the fact in a crime (children under the age of consent cannot, obviously, legally give consent to what is being done, making it sexual assault). Now, things have gone overboard (a teenage boy was thrown in jail as a sex offender because he took pictures of his girlfriend in a bathing suit; the judge decided that the center of the picture was too close to the girl's crotch). And, while pornography involving prepubescent children probably should be in a worse class than pornography involving postpubescent, it currently isn't. Finally, there's a matter of a burden of proof; the feds are trying to make it the law that the burden of proof is on the possessor of the material that the subject is of legal age (note that the federal government has a past history of using unpopular targets to set precedents which they can then sic on the general population; for example, the precedent which allows the IRS to estimate tip income of waitstaff and taxi drivers was set on drug dealers and prostitutes; I for one have a problem with guilty until proven innocent, no matter how heinous the crime).

However, and the Supreme Court currently agrees, if no real children are involved, then the 1st Amendment takes precedence. Unfortunately, once laws become well-established, their bases are often forgotten. The drug laws were started on the basis of drugs (including marijuana) making people insane. When murderers started using the "I was smoking marijuana" defense, the marijuana laws in particular became justified on the basis that taking drugs tend to lead to people taking drugs; the circular nature of the logic being less important than the so-called "war on drugs" (Grant in the past has shown a rather interesting connection between the war on drugs and the comic industry; it's partially theoretical, but it meshes well with everything else I've read).

I think child molestation is despicable. But I find the government using child molesters to to subvert the law is even MORE despicable.

[Briareos]

Did Mike Diana recieve the conviction for what he drew or for a actual act and he was forbidden to draw that as a probation condition?

[Briareos]

I'm reading this as I'm posting heh so sorry for the multiple posts but I don't think It's THAT much of a leap to say looking at child porn (with real children) is a good marker for someone who would molest children.

[Briareos]

I worked for a interet hosting company years ago so I unfortunately had to deal with this type of thing once in awhile. Alot of this stuff comes from countries that don't have laws against it and they use Credit Card fraud to pay for the website hosting.

[MartinRedmond]

So you're saying they can't do much about the source because it's all done outside the country?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'm reading this as I'm posting heh so sorry for the multiple posts but I don't think It's THAT much of a leap to say looking at child porn (with real children) is a good marker for someone who would molest children.

Well the most common pictures found at a pedophiles house is children's underwear catalogs, and everyone is given those.
It's like when people want American Psycho banned because it will encourage people to become killers, yet the most common book at serial killers houses is the Bible.
Obviously, as a (relatively) normal person I find child-porn disgusting, and more power to stopping it, however I feel it may be getting too much attention as a cause/indicator - it's almost like a placebo to put people's minds at ease.
(Such as when a drug shipment is caught and makes the news - there were still a lot more that got into, or were made in, the country that day/week/month).

Edit to add:
Is there any chance Steven, that you as a mod could change the title of this thread?
Not quite sure how much I like having my name next to it on the boards main page - didn't think of it till after posting.

[Steven Grant]

Is there any chance Steven, that you as a mod could change the title of this thread?

Okay... but I was at a loss for what to change it to. If you've got a better suggestion, let me know...

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

Okay... but I was at a loss for what to change it to. If you've got a better suggestion, let me know...

- Grant

I think you should change it to "I like to have sex with goats".

And then delete everyone's post but Funky's.

[Steven Grant]

I think you should change it to "I like to have sex with goats".

And then delete everyone's post but Funky's.

It crossed my mind...

- Grant

[bartl]

Obviously, as a (relatively) normal person I find child-porn disgusting, and more power to stopping it, however I feel it may be getting too much attention as a cause/indicator - it's almost like a placebo to put people's minds at ease.

As I've mentioned, to me, the sickness is in what is done to the children, either directly in taking the pictures, or indirectly in exposing the child to being ogled at by the sort of people who ogle at such things. So, for example, I would not go quite as far as the Supreme Court, which allows taking a photo of a real child's face, and attaching it to a fictional body.

I actually like the name Grant picked for the thread, by the way. The issue, of course, is not whether or not child pornography is "good" or "bad", but the ability of the government to regulate purely fictional works on the basis of laws designed to protect real people. While I am not happy with the current direction of the ACLU (where they are being proactive rather than reactive), but I do recognize their past work in defending bad people against bad law to protect good people from these same laws, and support that idea.

My concern in this is personal; I was in charge of computer security at one of the earlier online services back in the late 80's/early 90's. There were two government operations that concerned me deeply: Operation Sundevil and the raid on Waco. In the former, the Secret Service closed down a game publishing company, quite illegally as it turned out, because one of their employees was on a hacker board learning the slang. I was on several hacker boards; I managed to use them to track down a young man who had broken into our computer systems and did a bit of damage in the process. With Waco, an aspect that, due to the 2nd Amendment wrangling, was not as well publicized was that the case that U.S. was mounting against the Branch Davidians involved trying to convict on the basis of means and knowledge to commit a crime without proving intent. Which would have meant that, because I had the means and knowledge to break into computer systems, I could be arrested and convicted without the government having to prove that I intended to do so.

In other words, be careful when the government tramples on the rights of scum, because the precedents they send can be used against you.

[Adam C]

Did Mike Diana recieve the conviction for what he drew or for a actual act and he was forbidden to draw that as a probation condition?

What he drew. It was deemed "obscene" and thus he was forbidden to draw for his own pleasure and ordered to take counselling at his own expense.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Okay... but I was at a loss for what to change it to. If you've got a better suggestion, let me know...

- Grant

No, that's fine - I just post mainly at work, and although we're saying nothing nice about the subject, it still feels awkward seeing your username next to that.

I think you should change it to "I like to have sex with goats".

And then delete everyone's post but Funky's.

It crossed my mind...

- Grant

I love you guys too!

[Steven Grant]

No, that's fine - I just post mainly at work, and although we're saying nothing nice about the subject, it still feels awkward seeing your username next to that.

Lemme get this straight... you won't get in trouble if you're cruising the Internet to have private, personal discussions on company time but you will if your name appears next to a header that reads "Child Pornography"?

If it's any consolation, the NSA scanbots have probably already registered the original thread titles and all our names anyway....

- Grant

[Spike-X]

What he drew. It was deemed "obscene" and thus he was forbidden to draw for his own pleasure and ordered to take counselling at his own expense.

That was a disgusting decision by the court, and it set a hell of a disturbing precedent.

[mattx110]

Lemme get this straight... you won't get in trouble if you're cruising the Internet to have private, personal discussions on company time but you will if your name appears next to a header that reads "Child Pornography"?

If it's any consolation, the NSA scanbots have probably already registered the original thread titles and all our names anyway....

- Grant

Yea well, they didn't get mine becuase I didn't post in this thread!