Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

riverboy

Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Do you go around raping women now because of porn? Because if not, I'm not seeing how this is related, and this is the only meaningful argument you've actually made so far.

Actually, I don't watch a whole lot these days for fear of my son happening to stumble on it. At the same time, I am sickened at violent porn and do not watch it. I tend to stay away from it because it has gotten sickening. What is quite distressing however, is the way younger guys I know view how sex is, or should be, which is right in line with modern graphic porn. There has been a huge paradime shift regarding sex these days, not all of it good.

Here's an example my firend told me when I was back home. Some teachers at a a local ELEMENTARY school noticed a crowd gathered in a large circle. Now, when I was a young lad, it was surely a fight between a couple of boys. Not the case nowadays. A little girl was smack in the middle of the circle giving oral sex to another elememtary student. Where did she learn it from? Mommy's and Daddy,s all porn satellite of course.

What I am saying essentially, is that people are influenced by what they watch and people who have access to these kind of images will more than likely be aroused and take it to the next level. These are people who enjoy watching child rape, their mind is F---- up in a way that needs treatment -not appeasement. And yes, you are an apologist if you feel that people should be allowed to possess it - providing of course, if it is gotten for free.

Now I don't advocate the same sentences given as those who produce it, I do advocate a heavy fine and for them to be put on a list of potential pedophiles and for their names to be made public.

kabrams

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:51 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Yes, I'm talking about harm to the child. I don't disagree with the concept of social harm, but unless specific and concrete implications of said social harm can be presented, I strongly disagree with people being criminalized in order to try to address it.

I disagree.

Maintaining some social orders (meaning, ones that seem reasonable and ones we can agree on) includes prevention, appropriate punishment and eventual rehabilitation. As I've said before, people who produce pornography are often ego-driven, and enjoy spreading these images of child rape to their (often) loyal, casual or one-time followers.

A good chunk of international child pornography (that is, pornography gained from abroad) is taken directly from child molesters and given to non-child molesters, who then view the videos, films, etc. without payment.

Downloading child pornography is condoning child pornography. Those people who find sexual pleasure in children being raped could easily forward the photos to agents.

Online social-networking sites with the express objective to distribute child pornography has increased, and it is not uncommon for sites to give ranks and e-cred for those with the best photos.

When you have people setting up social networking sites that eggs on producers and distributors of child pornography, you have a societal problem. When you have child molesters sending videos and photos directly to consumers, that is a societal problem.

Fox wrote:

I don't see how coming down brutally on possessors of child pornography improves society at all (in fact, the set of sex crime laws we have in place seems to be to be objectively harmful).

If it were up to me and my vengeance, I would support long prison sentence for child molesters and ongoing public ostracization.

But...I don't.

Fox wrote:

I do see how using them to apprehend genuine culprits of direct, personal harm improves society, and I do see how getting them help instead of locking them up at taxpayer expense improves society (assuming the limit of their crimes is viewing child pornography).

I agree.

Fox wrote:

You can prove that a child's privacy rights have been violated by the original creator of the video or film. Other people viewing those creations does not constitution additional privacy violations, but rather simply makes the original privacy violation progressively worse.

The success of recent court cases in which it has been argued, among other things, that possessing child pornography is an invasion of privacy, makes me think it's not as cut-and-dry as you are trying to position it. [/quote]

kabrams

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:00 pm Post subject:

riverboy wrote:

I have met a lot of guys who actually think pornography is what women want, and I have met some women who believe that they should be porn stars.

http://www.makelovenotporn.com/main.php#

http://blog.ted.com/2009/12/cindy_gallop_ma.php (with hilarious video)

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 8:36 am Post subject:

kabrams wrote:

jvalmer wrote:

She was 15 when she started appearing in porn films, because she lied about her age. But the people watching were under the impression she was 18. Where do you draw the line on that one?

The Traci Lords story is a sad one. The people were under the impression that she was 18, and under those circumstances, it would be irresponsible to target and press charges against the men and women who viewed those videos.

Yes. And some of those people went to prison for production of kiddy porn. You support that?

kabrams wrote:

There is direct harm (the people who actually film children being raped) and indirect harm (the people who watch, buy and download such film, who support the industry of child rape videos). Both are powerful forms of abuse.

What about the underage people who willingly participate, like Traci Lords? Was she raped? Was she the one harmed or the one doing the harm?

This idea of "indirect harm" stems from the tragically silly decision by the US Supreme Court a couple of decades back which held that a photo of child sex abuse was equivalent to the actual abuse itself. It is no wonder that some continue to echo it.

kabrams wrote:

The industry of child rape videos isn't some underground thing comprised of sad old men in their mothers' basements masturbating to grainy footage of children being raped.

There are actual businesses that produce these videos, ranging from legal videos, where they pick super-young looking children or use Photoshop, to actual illegal videos of children being raped. The illegal part of the industry makes billions of dollars a year.

Are you talking about the $3 billion one

Quote:

"Child pornography is one of the fastest growing online businesses generating approximately $US3 billion ($3.43 billion) each year"

This '$US3 billion' figure has no credibility and even if it was factual as at January 2008...The '$US3 billion' figure has been promulgated far and wide since at least mid 2003, when Utah-based Jerry Ropelato commenced publishing it, without citing a source, on his web site InternetFilterReview.com.

In addition to The Wall Street Journal's "Numbers Guy", Carl Bialik (as referenced earlier herein), at least one other journalist has tried, also without success, to find out the original source of particular 'statistics' Ropelato promotes, after tracing other peoples'/organisations' claims to Ropelato. In November 2005, Seth Lubove reported:

Quote:

"Most of the statistics there have come from literally hundreds of sources, all reputable," Ropelato insists. He says he got the age-11 item from The Drug of the New Millennium, a book about the dangers of porn self-published in 2000 by Mark Kastleman, a self-professed former porn addict in Orem, Utah, who counsels other porn fiends. "I don't remember where I got that from," Kastleman says breezily. "That is a very common statistic." And there the trail goes cold.

or the $20 billion one?

Quote:

"child pornography is a $20 billion industry worldwide"

This out-of-date/discredited $20 billion 'statistic' was given new life in March 2008 when it appeared in Australian media reports as a result of a joint media release between the Australian Federal Police and Microsoft. The statistic was disowned in April 2006 by the organisations to which it had been, and still is being, attributed (i.e. the FBI and Unicef).

Again, there is no "child porn industry" of any significance. Most is produced for personal or private use, and may be traded non-commercially with others of like mind. Significant amounts of money rarely change hands.

kabrams wrote:

It is almost impossible to find/trace the people who film these videos. It is much easier to find/trace the people who support the industry by buying these videos.

Isn't that like losing your keys in the dark but looking under the lamp because the light's better?

kabrams wrote:

In cases of non-purchased support, the incentive is in the form of normalizing this practice in the eyes of people who do purchase videos depicting child rape.

Supporting an industry of child rape is as bad as filming videos of child rape. This may be getting into "thought police" and is definitely emotionally based, but I stand by my position for criminalization of downloaded child pornography, both purchased and non-purchased.

See above. The "child rape industry" and purchasers of such videos are essentially non-existent.

Last edited by bacasper on Mon May 31, 2010 9:13 am; edited 1 time in total

NovaKart

Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:07 am Post subject:

How many people are actually sent away for watching rape? If a judge can convict someone for a picture of a child in what he deems to be a provocative pose or simply a nude photo I imagine that's what the majority of people are put away for. The definition of pornography is so vague. You also have to ascertain how this got on someone's computer. With files and viruses going from computer to computer it's not inconceivable that it could end up on someone's computer by accident. Especially considering that many people like myself have little understanding of how that works. This is why I'm also against harsh prison sentences for posession of child porn. If someone knowingly downloads a video of a child being raped I wouldn't be against sentencing that person to prison. But many innocent people could end up being targeted by these laws.

kabrams

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Yes. And some of those people went to prison for production of kiddy porn. You support that?

Have I indicated that I do?

Quote:

What about the underage people who willingly participate, like Traci Lords? Was she raped? Was she the one harmed or the one doing the harm?

I can't believe this is an actual question. Have you never read any interviews Traci Lords has done on the issue? You do realize that during her test shoots, she claims she had been given cocaine to "calm her down", right?

On her first pornography video shoot (and this is not disputed), she was scared and pretty much ran away, and had to be coaxed into coming back on the set.

Traci Lords was incapable of giving consent. So while she wasn't tied up she could not give consent and she was harmed, as is evidenced by her own words.

Unfortunately, the people filming the videos didn't realize she wasn't of-age yet and as such, they had a reasonable expectation that they were within the law.

The majority of child pornography is not so-called "adult-looking" 15-year-olds who willingly participate in "standard" adult films, but young children. The trend in child pornography is towards younger victims, not older, and we're talking toddlers here.

Adults in these child pornography videos often know the victim and are related to the victim. The difference in age between rapist and child is actually quite substantial. In international child rape videos, the physical violence is worse.

Quote:

This idea of "indirect harm" stems from the tragically silly decision by the US Supreme Court a couple of decades back which held that a photo of child sex abuse was equivalent to the actual abuse itself. It is no wonder that some continue to echo it.

Actually, I don't believe that a photo or video is equivalent to the actual abuse. Are you talking around my argument or addressing it?

Quote:

Are you talking about the $3 billion one

or the $20 billion one

I actually wasn't going from any specific monetary amount, but from general websites like NCMEC (which site the source you mentioned for $3 billion) so I guess I have more reading to do on the subject.

Quote:

Isn't that like losing your keys in the dark but looking under the lamp because the light's better?

No. It's like finding someone snorting cocaine in the bathroom instead of the actual drug-ring leader.

Quote:

See above. The "child rape industry" and purchasers of such videos are essentially non-existent.

I'll reserve judgment until I have more time to research the figures. If it's true (and it looks like there's more truth than not) I guess I'll have to re-evaluate my statements. However, I think the thesis of that paper sums it up nicely:

Quote:

This paper does not contend that there is not a serious problem in relation to the use of Internet technologies to distribute/obtain child sexual abuse material. The core point made herein is that the use of web sites for such purposes has long been, and still is being, vastly exaggerated in the media, by advocacy organisations, etc. Meanwhile little if any attention has been given to credible evidence that there is a vastly larger problem involving the use of non-Web Internet technologies which will not be affected in any way by the Federal Government's plan to spend AUD$44.5 million on 'blocking' of accidental/unintentional access to web sites. The problem can only be reduced by better funded and resourced specialist units of law enforcement agencies.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 5:24 pm Post subject:

kabrams wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Yes. And some of those people went to prison for production of kiddy porn. You support that?

Have I indicated that I do?

You imply that anything that passes for "child pornography" is a recording of "child rape" for which you support severe sanctions, so yes, you appear to.

Quote:

What about the underage people who willingly participate, like Traci Lords? Was she raped? Was she the one harmed or the one doing the harm?

I just know that she lied about her age to become a porn star. It has been awhile, so I could stand to review the case.

Quote:

The majority of child pornography is not so-called "adult-looking" 15-year-olds who willingly participate in "standard" adult films, but young children. The trend in child pornography is towards younger victims, not older, and we're talking toddlers here.

Adults in these child pornography videos often know the victim and are related to the victim. The difference in age between rapist and child is actually quite substantial. In international child rape videos, the physical violence is worse.

Can you back up your assertions with any actual evidence?

[quote]

Quote:

Actually, I don't believe that a photo or video is equivalent to the actual abuse. Are you talking around my argument or addressing it?

Quote:

That would depend on whether you believe that a picture of a crime is as bad as the crime itself.

Quote:

Are you talking about the $3 billion one

or the $20 billion one

Quote:

See above. The "child rape industry" and purchasers of such videos are essentially non-existent.

Quote:

Yes, but if it is a tiny problem to begin with, why waste all those government resources on it? It is just another boondoggle, and jkust what we need: more $ for law enforcement. Rolling Eyes

kabrams

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

You imply that anything that passes for "child pornography" is a recording of "child rape" for which you support severe sanctions, so yes, you appear to.

Actually, I don't "support severe sanctions."

Quote:

I just know that she lied about her age to become a porn star. It has been awhile, so I could stand to review the case.

Okay.

Quote:

Can you back up your assertions with any actual evidence?

Yes, but a lot of the stats come from the same areas that have now been put under scrutiny(not the direct stats but on the same websites), so I will look to see if there are some that don't overlap.

Quote:

Yes, but if it is a tiny problem to begin with, why waste all those government resources on it? It is just another boondoggle, and jkust what we need: more $ for law enforcement

Wait, so you agree with everything else in the article, except for its conclusion that child rape videos/pics are actually a substantial problem?

???

Quote:

That would depend on whether you believe that a picture of a crime is as bad as the crime itself.

I believe that seeking out photos of children being raped and tortured specifically for sexual pleasure is as bad as raping and torturing children. I don't believe they should be given jail sentences, but I do think mandatory help is in order.

I believe continuously seeking out snuff videos of people being murdered (for personal/sexual gratification) is as bad as murdering someone--but I don't believe they should have a prison sentence.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:45 am Post subject:

kabrams wrote:

bacasper wrote:

You imply that anything that passes for "child pornography" is a recording of "child rape" for which you support severe sanctions, so yes, you appear to.

Actually, I don't "support severe sanctions."

OK, that's good.

Quote:

Yes, but if it is a tiny problem to begin with, why waste all those government resources on it? It is just another boondoggle, and just what we need: more $ for law enforcement

Wait, so you agree with everything else in the article, except for its conclusion that child rape videos/pics are actually a substantial problem?

???

I agree that

Quote:

... the use of web sites for such purposes has long been, and still is being, vastly exaggerated in the media, by advocacy organisations, etc.

and

Quote:

... that there is a vastly larger problem involving the use of non-Web Internet technologies which will not be affected in any way by the Federal Government's plan to spend AUD$44.5 million on 'blocking' of accidental/unintentional access to web sites.

kabrams wrote:

My point is that videos/photos of child torture, violent child rape, and snuff videos are so rare that as sociological problems or from an anthropological perspective these things do not even hit the radar. Millions or billions to feed the law enforcement and NGO juggernauts to fight boogeymen. Much ado about nothing.

Mr. Pink

Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: China

Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:49 pm Post subject:

This thread is pretty scary. It hasn't even touched on some of the more disturbing aspects, like what goes on in poorer countries, or how some poor countries benefit from exploiting children this way. I wanted to point out about the original OP that I think the laws do need to be changed. IMO those who are under 17 and make videos of themselves or themselves and their girlfriend or boyfriend, they shouldn't be charged with child pornography offenses for obvious reasons. (Perhaps their parents should be charged for not teaching common sense, but that is another issue.) Sometimes the law doesn't fit the crime. If someone who views this type of pornography can get more time than the person perpetrating the crime, then something is definitely wrong with the "system".

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:54 pm Post subject:

Mr. Pink wrote:

This thread is pretty scary.

Just what are you afraid of talking about?

Quote:

It hasn't even touched on some of the more disturbing aspects, like what goes on in poorer countries, or how some poor countries benefit from exploiting children this way.

Instead of mongering fear and/or emotion, got any hard evidence?

Quote:

I wanted to point out about the original OP that I think the laws do need to be changed. IMO those who are under 17 and make videos of themselves or themselves and their girlfriend or boyfriend, they shouldn't be charged with child pornography offenses for obvious reasons.

Some would say there are "obvious rebuttals" to your "obvious reasons." Just what are they?

Quote:

Sometimes the law doesn't fit the crime. If someone who views this type of pornography can get more time than the person perpetrating the crime, then something is definitely wrong with the "system".

Agreed.

El Exigente

Joined: 10 Sep 2010

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:54 am Post subject:

Apparently, a lot of judges are of a mind similar to Judge Weinstein's:

Judges Trim Jail Time for Child Porn

Data Show Trend Toward Leniency for People Who View Images but Aren't Molesters

By AMIR EFRATI

Quote:

More federal judges are showing leniency toward individuals who view child pornography but who aren't themselves molesters, according to recent data on prison sentences.

Judges are looking skeptically at prosecutors' requests to give 15- to 25-year sentences for viewing sexual images of minors, handing down more sentences of five to 10 years, or in some cases probation. The movement has been gaining steam over the past two years even as the Justice Department has made child pornography and other child-exploitation prosecutions a top priority, leading to more than 2,300 cases last year, the highest figure since the department began tracking the statistic.

"We've reached a critical momentum for change," said Troy Stabenow, a federal public defender in Missouri whose critique of child-pornography sentences has been cited by judges. "The recent sentences are signaling, as strongly as I have ever seen, that judges around the country think the current system is broken."

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe