PDA

View Full Version : NH-TSA "officer" busted for kiddie porn.




Anti Federalist
06-15-2013, 10:02 AM
Hat tip to:


http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/558/500/98a.jpg

Doesn't the NSA now hold the world largest collection of kiddie porn, since it has millions of "sext" messages and camera phone pictures of people engaged in sexual activity that are under 18?



Pedophile or Dedicated “Worker” for the TSA?

Posted by Becky Akers on June 15, 2013 06:05 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/139672.html

Despite Our Rulers’ total surveillance of us, their own degeneracy and filth flourishes as if no one, not even a higher Judge, is watching: “A former top officer” at the TSA who’s “worked [sic] for the federal agency since August 2002” “was arrested on child pornography charges after items were seized from his locker at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport” in New Hampshire.

Cops claim that they discovered evidence on Miquel Quinones’ “personal laptop computer and three thumb drives stored in his airport locker.” Seems an odd place to hide your sin. So perhaps the cops are lying yet again, but who cares? When their target is a fellow myrmidon for the satanic state, I sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

Allegedly among the stash was “a video and more than 1,000 images of child pornography…” Ah, so that’s why Quinones kept the stuff at the office, so to speak: he’d simply downloaded the porno-scanners’ photos into his laptop.

You’d think they’d commend the guy for working overtime rather than vilify him as a pedophile. Yo, TSA: kinda tough to tell the difference, isn’t it?

tangent4ronpaul
06-15-2013, 10:05 AM
Didn't this guy get the memo about being more careful about what they stole from peoples luggage?

-t

pcosmar
06-15-2013, 11:12 AM
Well good,, I guess.

But it does raise questions,,

http://privateofficernews.wordpress.com/tag/miguel-quinones/

Sgt. Thomas Grella, commander of the New Hampshire Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, said Quinones had been under investigation for more than a year, but could not comment further on the case.
Police were notified by the task force Jan. 2 that Quinones voluntarily turned over his computer and thumb drives, Jones said.

Been under investigation for a year.. Turned over evidence 6 months ago..

And was still on the job? Was just charged Wednesday.

OK this one is a bit different,,
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130613/NEWS03/130619626

The investigation began Jan. 2 when the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) notified police that Quinones was being investigated for possessing child pornography.

Quinones voluntarily turned over his personal laptop and three USB thumb drives, which police said he kept in his personal employment locker at the airport, to ICAC investigators.

Londonderry police applied for a search warrant for the computer and thumb drives, while ICAC assisted with the forensic search once the warrants were approved.

On May 23, police received the results of that search which they said found more than 1,000 images and a video of what appeared to be child sexual abuse/pornography on the laptop and thumb drives, according to Londonderry police.

So the got a warrant after he voluntarily turned over the evidence.
and it took all this time to examine them?

and another couple weeks to charge him? All the while,, he was still on the job of feeling up kids.

Alex Libman
06-15-2013, 11:25 AM
Legalize kiddy porn. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120973)

Outlaw the TSA.

Elias Graves
06-15-2013, 11:25 AM
Or is it just another employee who didn't like the way the tsa was running things? It's to the point where I even doubt claims like this at all.

Veterans by the tens of thousands are being adjudicated as "mental defectives" for doing nothing more than arguing a doctor's diagnosis or asking for a second opinion. Once thy happens, they lose all their gun rights.

Once the single payer health system kicks in and we are all required to have an annual physical including lots of questions about your mental health. Are you on anti depressants? You're not safe to own a gun.

Its almost complete, folks. Kiss Freedom goodbye. This is how it ends.

pcosmar
06-15-2013, 11:38 AM
Or is it just another employee who didn't like the way the tsa was running things? It's to the point where I even doubt claims like this at all.

That thought crossed my mind as well.

I am generally an, "assume Innocent" type of guy. My dislike of the existence of this shit tends to assume anyone working there is guilty.
Guilty of working there..

But there are definite questions about this story..

He may be guilty of working for TSA and innocent of these charges.

oyarde
06-15-2013, 11:42 AM
Well good,, I guess.

But it does raise questions,,

http://privateofficernews.wordpress.com/tag/miguel-quinones/


Been under investigation for a year.. Turned over evidence 6 months ago..

And was still on the job? Was just charged Wednesday.

OK this one is a bit different,,
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130613/NEWS03/130619626


So the got a warrant after he voluntarily turned over the evidence.
and it took all this time to examine them?

and another couple weeks to charge him? All the while,, he was still on the job of feeling up kids.

Kind of sounds like it took the Judge a long time to get around to the warrant, wonder why ?

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 11:44 AM
Legalize kiddy porn. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120973)

Outlaw the TSA.


I've never done any illegal drugs and never will, and I occasionally get pissed off at my fellow libertarians for pushing this issue far more than some other issues I consider to be more important, but, yes, I do support full legalization, as well as an end to prosecution of all other victimless crimes, from consensual cannibalism to child porn.




The only reason why any child would be victimized into doing child porn is the profit motive, and the only reason why child porn is profitable is because it's illegal.

There are millions of kids out there with PC cams and cell phone cameras out there, and sometimes they choose post pictures of themselves, especially the teenage boys. Millions of images have already floated past your ISP's Usenet server. When someone buys porn they're not paying for access to unique intellectual property, whether they know it or not they're paying for protection from government prosecution.

Human beings become sexually active at puberty, not when government says so. Deal with it.

(I don't want to hijack this thread, if you want to discuss this further start a new thread or PM me a link to an existing one.)

I can see why you were banned.

Alex Libman
06-15-2013, 11:53 AM
I can see why you were banned.

Sometimes I get banned from skeptic forums for being a genuine skeptic while others aren't.

Sometimes I get banned from libertarian forums for being a genuine libertarian while others aren't.

And sometimes I used to get very angry and write an occasional "violent" rant, for which a ban is justified.

But let's stay on topic here.

Petar
06-15-2013, 11:55 AM
I used to think that possession (not production) of child porn was a victimless crime, but now I believe that possession of such material is a form of additional assault towards the victims.

Anti Federalist
06-15-2013, 11:57 AM
So they got a warrant after he voluntarily turned over the evidence and it took all this time to examine them?

And another couple weeks to charge him? All the while, he was still on the job of feeling up kids.

For Our Safety.

The Constitution Is Not A Suicide Pact.

They Hate Us For Our Freedoms.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/1a36f63d61b4bad44244164a51c333c0/tumblr_mj0sbwVxPx1r4ugi5o1_500.gif

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 11:57 AM
Sometimes I get banned from skeptic forums for being a genuine skeptic while others aren't.

Sometimes I get banned from libertarian forums for being a genuine libertarian while others aren't.

And sometimes I used to get very angry and write an occasional "violent" rant, for which a ban is justified.

But let's stay on topic here.

Ok, your post said "legalize kiddie porn". In my world, that a pretty fucking sick statement. On topic enough for you?

pcosmar
06-15-2013, 11:59 AM
Kind of sounds like it took the Judge a long time to get around to the warrant, wonder why ?

seems like,, but still does not add.

He was under investigation for a year(assumes there was some reason to investigate) and six months into that,, he voluntarily turns over the evidence..
Still on the job,,

Now the warrant. since he voluntarily gave them the laptop and thumb drives,, no warrant was necessary.. But assuming it was,, it takes months to get..
When a anonymous tip will send SWAT to kick in doors over a little or no drugs.
And he is still on the job,,

Then,,evidence in hand,, it takes almost three more weeks to arrest him, (they knew his address and place of employment)

I can't help thinking that something else is going on here.
Computational Difficulties.

Alex Libman
06-15-2013, 12:02 PM
Ok, your post said "legalize kiddie porn". In my world, that a pretty fucking sick statement. On topic enough for you?

OK, so you haven't thought this through yet. This knee-jerk reaction is common and intuitive, but that doesn't make it right. Read the thread I've linked to. Set aside your emotions and think logically. We all agree that rape should be illegal, what we're talking about here is data - the ultimate excuse that The Powers That Be need to maintain total control over the Internet. Freedom is impossible in a world where some combination of 1's and 0's makes you a hated prisoner for the rest of your life.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 12:07 PM
OK, so you haven't thought this through yet. This knee-jerk reaction is common and intuitive, but that doesn't make it right. Read the thread I've linked to. Set aside your emotions and think logically. We all agree that rape should be illegal, what we're talking about here is data - the ultimate excuse that The Powers That Be need to maintain total control over the Internet. Freedom is impossible in a world where some combination of 1's and 0's makes you a hated prisoner for the rest of your life.

I read far enough, you were taking a pounding and rightly so. Child pornography is not a victimless crime. That "data" is created in the real world.

pcosmar
06-15-2013, 12:13 PM
. Set aside your emotions and think logically.

I do try to. I have no interest in Kiddy Porn. I saw some once briefly due to a browser hijack back when i used windoze.

I am curious as to why he was being investigated in the first place (by *ICAC). And wondering if this story is being used to justify Spying on the Internet.

And beyond that,, why this shit does not seem to add up .

* https://www.icactaskforce.org/Pages/Home.aspx
https://www.icactaskforce.org/SiteCollectionImages/MakingInternetSaferPlace_text.png

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 12:32 PM
I read far enough, you were taking a pounding and rightly so. Child pornography is not a victimless crime. That "data" is created in the real world.
This is why resources should be used to capture the creators of kiddie pr0n, not the end user. There are exceptions to this-like if the end user commissioned the act or had some other role in its creation.

This should not be construed as a defense of kiddie pr0n. People are into that stuff have a genuine problem that needs to be dealt with psychologically. Throwing them in rape cages does not solve that problem.

If you can think of an exception to all this, I'd like to hear it. I have no significant experience in this area of law, psychology, etc.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 12:41 PM
This is why resources should be used to capture the creators of kiddie pr0n, not the end user. There are exceptions to this-like if the end user commissioned the act or had some other role in its creation.

This should not be construed as a defense of kiddie pr0n. People are into that stuff have a genuine problem that needs to be dealt with psychologically. Throwing them in rape cages does not solve that problem.

If you can think of an exception to all this, I'd like to hear it. I have no significant experience in this area of law, psychology, etc.

That seems to me a completely sane post, with the exception that child molesters are frequently viewers of this stuff.

Alex Libman
06-15-2013, 12:42 PM
I read far enough, you were taking a pounding and rightly so.

You mean I was delivering a pounding. I see you're new to this. Arguments are won through logic, not through having an angry mob on your side.



Child pornography is not a victimless crime. That "data" is created in the real world.

Yes, and that may be a crime (if so described by the victim and/or his/her parents/guardians, etc). But a picture of a crime is not a crime. Having video of a bank robbery does not make you a bank robber.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 12:52 PM
That seems to me a completely sane post, with the exception that child molesters are frequently viewers of this stuff.
They also use ads for kids underwear and swimsuits and such, as I understand from popular psychology articles. Ban all photos/videos of children. :rolleyes:

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 12:52 PM
You mean I was delivering a pounding. I see you're new to this. Arguments are won through logic, not through having an angry mob on your side.




Yes, and that may be a crime (if so described by the victim and/or his/her parents/guardians, etc). But a picture of a crime is not a crime. Having video of a bank robbery does not make you a bank robber.

Yet your post says legalize it. While I don't pretend to understand the compulsion to watch it (huge understatement), the fact is a crime is committed making it and there is a victim.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 12:53 PM
They also use ads for kids underwear and swimsuits and such, as I understand from popular psychology articles. Ban all photos/videos of children. :rolleyes:

Point taken, however they are not having to engage in sex acts.

Alex Libman
06-15-2013, 12:55 PM
I do try to. I have no interest in Kiddy Porn. I saw some once briefly due to a browser hijack back when i used windoze.

Yet another reason why it shouldn't be illegal. It can be planted on anyone, even the paranoid OpenBSD crypto-thumpers among us. Critics of the government can always have some little 0day-exploit used against them... It could be any browser on any OS, or even specific to a Web-site... And suddenly you're a hated criminal, and everything you've ever said is discredited.



This is why resources should be used to capture the creators of kiddie pr0n, not the end user. There are exceptions to this-like if the end user commissioned the act or had some other role in its creation.

Assuming that the creator of said content is actually committing a crime, with an actual victim. It could be an artist using PhotoShop, or the latest 3D modeling techniques, etc. It could be kids taking pictures of themselves. It could be an emancipated minor (18 years and 0 days isn't a magic number for everybody). Etc. The Internet should quickly fill up with more victimless "kiddy porn" than any sicko could view in a thousand lifetimes.

Alex Libman
06-15-2013, 01:02 PM
[...] the fact is a crime is committed making it and there is a victim.

That's not called kiddy pr0n. That's called RAPE. We all agree that should be very VERY illegal. But this thread is titled "busted for kiddie porn". 1's and 0's.



Point taken, however they are not having to engage in sex acts.

A lot of porn (any kind of porn) is "posing" rather than "in action". My parents took a picture of me as a baby in the bathtub - someone could be thrown in prison for a long time for mere possession of that photo. Not to mention nude beaches and Google Glass. If humanity doesn't get rid of this irrational fear of "kiddy porn" ASAP, the information age will be nothing but a police state, where anyone can be arrested for anything.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 01:05 PM
Yet another reason why it shouldn't be illegal. It can be planted on anyone, even the paranoid OpenBSD crypto-thumpers among us. Critics of the government can always have some little 0day-exploit used against them... It could be any browser on any OS, or even specific to a Web-site... And suddenly you're a hated criminal, and everything you've ever said is discredited.




Assuming that the creator of said content is actually committing a crime, with an actual victim. It could be an artist using PhotoShop, or the latest 3D modeling techniques, etc. It could be kids taking pictures of themselves. It could be an emancipated minor (18 years and 0 days isn't a magic number for everybody). Etc. The Internet should quickly fill up with more victimless "kiddy porn" than any sicko could view in a thousand lifetimes.
Exactly. And as Pete touched on, hackers could plant "kiddy pr0n" onto someone's computer just to get them busted. Like the outlawing of drugs and a number of other inanimate objects, the law can easily abused in SO many ways. Especially by the sort of lawyers who are employed by various levels of the regime-and profit from arresting and incarcerating as many people as possible. (Prison-State-Industrial complex :mad: )

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 01:07 PM
That's not called kiddy pr0n. That's called RAPE. We all agree that should be very VERY illegal. But this thread is titled "busted for kiddie porn". 1's and 0's.




A lot of porn (any kind of porn) is "posing" rather than "in action". My parents took a picture of me as a baby in the bathtub - someone could be thrown in prison for a long time for mere possession of that photo. Not to mention nude beaches and Google Glass. If humanity doesn't get rid of this irrational fear of "kiddy porn" ASAP, the information age will be nothing but a police state, where anyone can be arrested for anything.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Alex Libman again

​Big Brother is watching... :(

Anti Federalist
06-15-2013, 01:10 PM
Not to mention nude beaches and Google Glass. If humanity doesn't get rid of this irrational fear of "kiddy porn" ASAP, the information age will be nothing but a police state, where anyone can be arrested for anything.

It already is, and will become an even worse one, regardless of the presence of kiddie porn or not.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 01:13 PM
That's not called kiddy pr0n. That's called RAPE. We all agree that should be very VERY illegal. But this thread is titled "busted for kiddie porn". 1's and 0's.




A lot of porn (any kind of porn) is "posing" rather than "in action". My parents took a picture of me as a baby in the bathtub - someone could be thrown in prison for a long time for mere possession of that photo. Not to mention nude beaches and Google Glass. If humanity doesn't get rid of this irrational fear of "kiddy porn" ASAP, the information age will be nothing but a police state, where anyone can be arrested for anything.

That is quite debatable on this site. In fact, I would say there are those here who would make rape a unpunishable crime because you can't prove the victim didn't consent.

Do abuses by the judicial system happen? Obviously. Should viewing child porn that involves actual sex acts be made legal? I don't think that falls under the category of "I'm not hurting anybody".

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 01:35 PM
That is quite debatable on this site. In fact, I would say there are those here who would make rape a unpunishable crime because you can't prove the victim didn't consent.

Do abuses by the judicial system happen? Obviously. Should viewing child porn that involves actual sex acts be made legal? I don't think that falls under the category of "I'm not hurting anybody".
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again.
:(Damn machine won't let me +rep you. :P Conspiracy!

tangent4ronpaul
06-15-2013, 01:36 PM
This is why resources should be used to capture the creators of kiddie pr0n, not the end user.

Who is the #1 creator of "Kiddy porn"?

I'll give you a hint: When is the "victim" also the creator, possessor and distributor of such stuff? What youthful activity do roughly 20% of teens participate in as a means of flirting? While you can sometimes tell how old a photo is, you can't tell how old the subject of that photo is. I tell you, we need a LAW requiring that each citizens name, SS# and DOB be tattoo's on to their forehead at birth via a barcode.

There is a reason advertizing companies start recruiting for models at the age of 14, the models are entering the prime of their life and most attractive years, as well as most reproductively friendly. That sells!

-t

Weston White
06-15-2013, 02:54 PM
What is interesting (or ironic) on the comment about psychology is that its very foundation emanated from the great pederast philosophers of Rome and Greece.

Photos of children in underwear ads are not intended to be sexual or provocative in nature so they are not qualified "pornography".

While a photo of a bank robbery does not make one a bank robber, it could lead to a charge of conspiring to commit or abet a bank robbery.

Certainly digital files contain data and code; however, the images being depicted are representative of a living person that cannot yet legally make their own life decisions. Thus, anything else is purely exploitative of the obvious.

Ergo, children are likely not yet mature enough to have realized the long-term consequences of posting their sexuality for the private pleasures of a ceaselessly viewing public.

ETA: The enforcement against child porn is a backwards failure, for police are largely interested in only go for the voyeur and not the involved parties directly involved in the creation of the illicit materials. Just as they go for the john and not the prostitute or her pimp; the drug abuser and not the dealer or runner, etc. They only want the easy game, they're not truly interested in working hard for their legal "victories". Hence, their goal is not to end such crimes, but only to capitalize from them (through revenue generation and stat-pumping). Also they base lots of this on junk science (e.g., the criminal case involving Lupe Fuentez (www.examiner.com/article/porn-star-lupe-fuentes-appears-puerto-rico-court-vindicates-man-accused-of-child-porn-possession)/"Little Lupe").

tangent4ronpaul
06-15-2013, 02:54 PM
Yes, there is a small percentage of the population that prays on young children. We live in a country of 310 Million people, what do you expect? The ones we hear about tend to be Catholic priests and schoolteachers. Perhaps 2-5 times a year we hear about an abducted child or college student that is later found dead after being sexually assaulted. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. "Statutory" rape is often not rape (forced). It's obscene when someone that violated another and released them gets more time than the person that took their life. The legal system is BROKEN!!!

Every 2-3 years we hear about the feds rounding up some pedo ring and bringing in 40-100 ppl worldwide (world population is around ~7 Billion...) I'm personally under the impression that there is a ton of "teen porn" (what did you think was going to happen when you gave your 12yo a smart phone w/ a camera...) and very little of the under-tween stuff. Sure, incest is probably more common than generally known. I've never found good numbers, but keep in mind that we are talking about "our culture". WTF is that??? We are a melting pot! In parts of Africa, our version of "the birds and the bees" chat, has a hands on "lab" component. For our US law abiding Muslim immigrants, their traditions of arraigned marriages to girls in the 9-16yo range must make the honeymoon a total bummer and a multi-year case of serious blue balls...

So you are both in HS, or close... but at least one of you is 16 or 17. That's legal in most states to have sex with. But try to "record the experience" and you are looking at spending the next 30 years of your life in a rape cage.

I posted a thread about how the 1982 movie VIDEODROME predicted the Internet and society a bit ago. I'd meant to go into this there. I highlighted one of their talking points: That now, seeing an image of a crime makes you a co-conspirator in that crime. It's funny how the camels nose under the tent thing works. The Internet didn't used to have cops. Then the cops came. And now we are a full time USSSTAZI type thing. OK, so this was all to "protect the children" (from a largely non-existent problem). But for a politician to denounce such hyped fear and go against "protecting the children" would be political suicide. OK, pretext established. Anyone noticed that filming the cops beating someones brains out has suddenly become a "crime"? Anyone notice that viewing "classified documents" of government criminal activities has become a crime as viewing a crime is as if you committed it, but some animals are more equal than others, so we walk while you rot in prison.

Isn't that about how it goes?

What about those 5,000+ DOD employee's that got caught not only accessing kiddy porn but PAYING FOR IT WITH THEIR CREDIT CARD???? WTF??? ATTENTION SOLDIER! Hold out your hand so I can lightly slap it! :rolleyes: Now get back to work.

-t

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 03:05 PM
Yes, there is a small percentage of the population that prays on young children. We live in a country of 310 Million people, what do you expect? The ones we hear about tend to be Catholic priests and schoolteachers. Perhaps 2-5 times a year we hear about an abducted child or college student that is later found dead after being sexually assaulted. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. "Statutory" rape is often not rape (forced). It's obscene when someone that violated another and released them gets more time than the person that took their life. The legal system is BROKEN!!!

Every 2-3 years we hear about the feds rounding up some pedo ring and bringing in 40-100 ppl worldwide (world population is around ~7 Billion...) I'm personally under the impression that there is a ton of "teen porn" (what did you think was going to happen when you gave your 12yo a smart phone w/ a camera...) and very little of the under-tween stuff. Sure, incest is probably more common than generally known. I've never found good numbers, but keep in mind that we are talking about "our culture". WTF is that??? We are a melting pot! In parts of Africa, our version of "the birds and the bees" chat, has a hands on "lab" component. For our US law abiding Muslim immigrants, their traditions of arraigned marriages to girls in the 9-16yo range must make the honeymoon a total bummer and a multi-year case of serious blue balls...

So you are both in HS, or close... but at least one of you is 16 or 17. That's legal in most states to have sex with. But try to "record the experience" and you are looking at spending the next 30 years of your life in a rape cage.

I posted a thread about how the 1982 movie VIDEODROME predicted the Internet and society a bit ago. I'd meant to go into this there. I highlighted one of their talking points: That now, seeing an image of a crime makes you a co-conspirator in that crime. It's funny how the camels nose under the tent thing works. The Internet didn't used to have cops. Then the cops came. And now we are a full time USSSTAZI type thing. OK, so this was all to "protect the children" (from a largely non-existent problem). But for a politician to denounce such hyped fear and go against "protecting the children" would be political suicide. OK, pretext established. Anyone noticed that filming the cops beating someones brains out has suddenly become a "crime"? Anyone notice that viewing "classified documents" of government criminal activities has become a crime as viewing a crime is as if you committed it, but some animals are more equal than others, so we walk while you rot in prison.

Isn't that about how it goes?

What about those 5,000+ DOD employee's that got caught not only accessing kiddy porn but PAYING FOR IT WITH THEIR CREDIT CARD???? WTF??? ATTENTION SOLDIER! Hold out your hand so I can lightly slap it! :rolleyes: Now get back to work.

-t
Thread WINNAR! :cool: Sorry I'm out of rep for you at the moment. :(

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 03:14 PM
ETA: The enforcement against child porn is a backwards failure, for police are largely interested in only go for the voyeur and not the involved parties directly involved in the creation of the illicit materials. Just as they go for the john and not the prostitute or her pimp; the drug abuser and not the dealer or runner, etc. They only want the easy game, they're not truly interested in working hard for their legal "victories". Hence, their goal is not to end such crimes, but only to capitalize from them (through revenue generation and stat-pumping). Also they base lots of this on junk science (e.g., the criminal case involving Lupe Fuentez (www.examiner.com/article/porn-star-lupe-fuentes-appears-puerto-rico-court-vindicates-man-accused-of-child-porn-possession)/"Little Lupe").

I agree with this completely.

tod evans
06-15-2013, 03:21 PM
Thread WINNAR! :cool: Sorry I'm out of rep for you at the moment. :(

Covered.

tod evans
06-15-2013, 03:24 PM
the information age will be nothing but a police state, where anyone can be arrested for anything.

It already is and "kiddy porn" is only a small part of it.

kcchiefs6465
06-15-2013, 03:39 PM
If it is digitally created that is one thing.. still disgusting as all hell in my book, if it is a picture of a child being abused that is another. Not only should the rapist be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and me personally would argue for a death sentence, but anyone who downloads said picture, transfers said picture etc. should also be prosecuted. Albeit to a lesser extent than those who produced the picture, or rather, raped the child.

As far as the analogy of prosecuting the john, not the prostitute or pimp, or prosecuting the drug user, not the trafficker that is a fail. First, prostitutes should not be being prosecuted. I find the act morally reprehensible but it is her body and a transaction between consenting adults. If there wasn't a black market there wouldn't be a need for the pimp aside maybe for security. STDs would decrease as well with the ending of this black market. As long as that is all voluntary between consenting adults, more power to them. Drug traffickers or users ought not be prosecuted either. It creates a black market that in turn creates criminal cartels and street gangs. Drug laws need removed from the books. The only time I could see drug traffickers needing to be prosecuted is for targeting children. And that would include these goddamn pill peddlers who have zombified the nation's youth. My proposed punishment for them would be very strict. Ever wonder why it is okay for one group to manufacture amphetamine or methamphetamine and target children but not the other? Or for one group to peddle opiates but the poverty stricken negro gets 5 years for .1 grams? That is the injustice I'm more worried about.

Not whether some deviant waste of space can get off to children being tormented or raped. As to whether teens posting themselves online or sexting pictures I really have no opinion on it. Clearly two kids shouldn't be charged with child pornography if they are messaging each other back and forth.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 03:58 PM
If it is digitally created that is one thing.. still disgusting as all hell in my book, if it is a picture of a child being abused that is another. Not only should the rapist be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and me personally would argue for a death sentence, but anyone who downloads said picture, transfers said picture etc. should also be prosecuted. Albeit to a lesser extent than those who produced the picture, or rather, raped the child.

As far as the analogy of prosecuting the john, not the prostitute or pimp, or prosecuting the drug user, not the trafficker that is a fail. First, prostitutes should not be being prosecuted. I find the act morally reprehensible but it is her body and a transaction between consenting adults. If there wasn't a black market there wouldn't be a need for the pimp aside maybe for security. STDs would decrease as well with the ending of this black market. As long as that is all voluntary between consenting adults, more power to them. Drug traffickers or users ought not be prosecuted either. It creates a black market that in turn creates criminal cartels and street gangs. Drug laws need removed from the books. The only time I could see drug traffickers needing to be prosecuted is for targeting children. And that would include these goddamn pill peddlers who have zombified the nation's youth. My proposed punishment for them would be very strict. Ever wonder why it is okay for one group to manufacture amphetamine or methamphetamine and target children but not the other? Or for one group to peddle opiates but the poverty stricken negro gets 5 years for .1 grams? That is the injustice I'm more worried about.

Not whether some deviant waste of space can get off to children being tormented or raped. As to whether teens posting themselves online or sexting pictures I really have no opinion on it. Clearly two kids shouldn't be charged with child pornography if they are messaging each other back and forth.
Why? There's nothing to charge these hypothetical people with. Unless you believe in Thoughtcrime, of course. (note that this should not be construed to be a defense of child pr0n)

Elias Graves
06-15-2013, 04:01 PM
It already is and "kiddy porn" is only a small part of it.

Indeed. The canard about "if you have nothing to hide..." is a sham. Maybe you aren't breaking any laws but who's to say what's illegal tomorrow?

The stage is set to criminalize Christians next year over the contraception/abortafacient section of obamacare. When religious companies and Christian nonprofits refuse to comply, they'll be labeled racists and bigots. Punishment will begin to come down and then all Christians will be criminals.
But, you have nothing to hide. Don't worry about it....

And, look, I'm not defending pedophiles. You rape a kid, you don't deserve to walk free in my book.
But, there surely seems to be an explosion of pedophiles, sexual assaults and other mysterious and nebulous crimes lately. It makes one wonder whether its better law inforcement, better spying or convenient way to eliminate and discredit enemies.

kcchiefs6465
06-15-2013, 04:22 PM
Why? There's nothing to charge these hypothetical people with. Unless you believe in Thoughtcrime, of course. (note that this should not be construed to be a defense of child pr0n)
Because the child was victimized. The victimization continues as their picture is spread wide and far over the internet and random pedos jerk off to it. It is aggressing against their Being.

Now the possession of digitally created child pornography, where it is purely fictional and no one was harmed during the production of it should not be a crime.

That is a big step for me considering my personal view that they are predators and by and large need put down. (as you would a rabid dog, for example) As I see it, allowing people to possess the pictures or videos of the rape or molestation without repercussion is further victimizing the victim. It is aggressing against their being. Not to mention it would stand to reason that it would encourage more of the films to be made, (not that some wouldn't anyways) but if possession of child pornography were to become legal there would be people looking to fill that market. They'd blur their face on the camera while raping children over the world and nothing conceivably could be done to stop it. Working to deter it would be a step in the right direction. Though I am aware that it will never stop, unfortunately.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 04:30 PM
Indeed. The canard about "if you have nothing to hide..." is a sham. Maybe you aren't breaking any laws but who's to say what's illegal tomorrow?

The stage is set to criminalize Christians next year over the contraception/abortafacient section of obamacare. When religious companies and Christian nonprofits refuse to comply, they'll be labeled racists and bigots. Punishment will begin to come down and then all Christians will be criminals.
But, you have nothing to hide. Don't worry about it....

And, look, I'm not defending pedophiles. You rape a kid, you don't deserve to walk free in my book.
But, there surely seems to be an explosion of pedophiles, sexual assaults and other mysterious and nebulous crimes lately. It makes one wonder whether its better law inforcement, better spying or convenient way to eliminate and discredit enemies.

Or the mainstreaming and normalization of those obsessed with childhood sexuality. Look, this shit went on when I was a kid in the sixties and seventies. But it wasn't pushed in the schools as it is now, nor was there was this obsession with homosexuality. There has always been pedophiles, and there has always been people making false accusations.

But there can be no denying there has been a change, aided and abetted by our government and school system with regards to children and sex. And by children, I mean young children. Not kids in their late teens.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 04:55 PM
Or the mainstreaming and normalization of those obsessed with childhood sexuality. Look, this shit went on when I was a kid in the sixties and seventies. But it wasn't pushed in the schools as it is now, nor was there was this obsession with homosexuality. There has always been pedophiles, and there has always been people making false accusations.

But there can be no denying there has been a change, aided and abetted by our government and school system with regards to children and sex. And by children, I mean young children. Not kids in their late teens.
I have no kids and don't keep up with kids' trends, but I'll take your word for it. Is it true that adverts aimed at kids are more "sexualized" nowadays? I hear people whining about it on teh radio and teh internetz, but I have no interaction with kids' culture so I'm not sure.

tod evans
06-15-2013, 04:58 PM
Indeed. The canard about "if you have nothing to hide..." is a sham. Maybe you aren't breaking any laws but who's to say what's illegal tomorrow?

The stage is set to criminalize Christians next year over the contraception/abortafacient section of obamacare. When religious companies and Christian nonprofits refuse to comply, they'll be labeled racists and bigots. Punishment will begin to come down and then all Christians will be criminals.
But, you have nothing to hide. Don't worry about it....

And, look, I'm not defending pedophiles. You rape a kid, you don't deserve to walk free in my book.
But, there surely seems to be an explosion of pedophiles, sexual assaults and other mysterious and nebulous crimes lately. It makes one wonder whether its better law inforcement, better spying or convenient way to eliminate and discredit enemies.

I don't believe for one minute "better law enforcement" has anything at all to do with the headlines we're fed.....

tangent4ronpaul
06-15-2013, 05:00 PM
It makes one wonder whether its better law inforcement, better spying or convenient way to eliminate and discredit enemies.

Yeah, Kiddy porn is the new drop gun. Or drug plant.

I would like to survey the folks here. Is is better that a "child" be "raped" (talking about a wide age distribution here) and have to live with that memory.

OR

Is it better that she/he be raped and MURDERED!???

Our legal system has sure set up a system where the latter works out a lot better for the assailant, if caught...

I guess it makes good news copy and sends fed $$$ into the right pockets. Gotta keep priorities in mind here - RIGHT???

-t

tangent4ronpaul
06-15-2013, 05:19 PM
What is interesting (or ironic) on the comment about psychology is that its very foundation emanated from the great pederast philosophers of Rome and Greece.

What comment about Psychology?


Photos of children in underwear ads are not intended to be sexual or provocative in nature so they are not qualified "pornography".

I beg to differ with you! Advertisers will push it to the limit their lawyers will tell them they can get away with. SEX SELLS!


While a photo of a bank robbery does not make one a bank robber, it could lead to a charge of conspiring to commit or abet a bank robbery.

After the fact???


Certainly digital files contain data and code; however, the images being depicted are representative of a living person that cannot yet legally make their own life decisions. Thus, anything else is purely exploitative of the obvious.

When my 15yo HS GF decided to have sex with me, I think we were BOTH able to make our own life decisions!!!! So FU!


Ergo, children are likely not yet mature enough to have realized the long-term consequences of posting their sexuality for the private pleasures of a ceaselessly viewing public.

Please define "children".


ETA: The enforcement against child porn is a backwards failure, for police are largely interested in only go for the voyeur and not the involved parties directly involved in the creation of the illicit materials. Just as they go for the john and not the prostitute or her pimp; the drug abuser and not the dealer or runner, etc. They only want the easy game, they're not truly interested in working hard for their legal "victories". Hence, their goal is not to end such crimes, but only to capitalize from them (through revenue generation and stat-pumping). Also they base lots of this on junk science (e.g., the criminal case involving Lupe Fuentez (www.examiner.com/article/porn-star-lupe-fuentes-appears-puerto-rico-court-vindicates-man-accused-of-child-porn-possession)/"Little Lupe").

Completely agree w/ you... though it just says you are reading my posts - creepy....

-t

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 05:24 PM
I have no kids and don't keep up with kids' trends, but I'll take your word for it. Is it true that adverts aimed at kids are more "sexualized" nowadays? I hear people whining about it on teh radio and teh internetz, but I have no interaction with kids' culture so I'm not sure.

I don't know so much about that, teens are and will be teens. The images they get from the media and school have changed pretty substantially though.

69360
06-15-2013, 05:28 PM
I didn't read the whole thread.

But the guy was under investigation for kiddy porn and they continued to let him grope children for a living?

tangent4ronpaul
06-15-2013, 05:58 PM
I didn't read the whole thread.

But the guy was under investigation for kiddy porn and they continued to let him grope children for a living?

What is so totally wrong with this statement in the first place?

How about GROPE ANYONE??? - Let alone children!

-t

kcchiefs6465
06-15-2013, 06:10 PM
Does anyone think I am stretching it with my assertion that possession of child pornography is further aggressing against the victim? Aggressing against their Being, in particular.

I don't think it is a stretch to argue as much. (digitally created pornography excluded) You are causing undue emotional harm by continuing to circulate the picture or merely possessing it. There was a victim to begin with.

I do believe the law has gotten a little out of hand with how black and white it is. A fifteen year old sends another 15 year old a naked picture and the prosecutor wants to label them sex offenders. That clearly needs to change. But with the case of young children being exploited, I think a case could be made that possession of child pornography does violate the NAP.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 06:17 PM
Does anyone think I am stretching it with my assertion that possession of child pornography is further aggressing against the victim? Aggressing against their Being, in particular.

I don't think it is a stretch to argue as much. (digitally created pornography excluded) You are causing undue emotional harm by continuing to circulate the picture or merely possessing it. There was a victim to begin with.

I do believe the law has gotten a little out of hand with how black and white it is. A fifteen year old sends another 15 year old a naked picture and the prosecutor wants to label them sex offenders. That clearly needs to change. But with the case of young children being exploited, I think a case could be made that possession of child pornography does violate the NAP.
That's a HUGE stretch. We already covered that in this thread, though. BTW, you don't have a right to a reputation or self-image or any such thing, so your argument WRT emotional harm in circulation of the pix doesn't quite hold water.

tod evans
06-15-2013, 06:21 PM
I'm an old-fart but I certainly remember the antics of myself and my peers as teenagers.

If we'd been subjected to "Just-Us" as defined today many of us would still be locked up....

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 06:24 PM
That's a HUGE stretch. We already covered that in this thread, though. BTW, you don't have a right to a reputation or self-image or any such thing, so your argument WRT emotional harm in circulation of the pix doesn't quite hold water.

So HB get's knocked out, kidnapped and gang raped. Violation. Said gang takes video of rape, and makes porno video that goes viral with the rape porno crowd. No violation?

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 06:25 PM
I'm an old-fart but I certainly remember the antics of myself and my peers as teenagers.

If we'd been subjected to "Just-Us" as defined today many of us would still be locked up....

I don't think most people associate that with "kiddie porn".

tod evans
06-15-2013, 06:28 PM
I don't think most people associate that with "kiddie porn".

Under "law" I/we would all have been guilty..:eek:

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 06:34 PM
Under "law" I/we would all have been guilty..:eek:

I have to agree that with todays "zero tolerance" mentality two 16 year olds sending pics back and forth seems to be no different than a thirty year old doing it with a ten year old. We've lost our collective minds. Well, not really, the government is out of control and we're not stopping it.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 06:34 PM
So HB get's knocked out, kidnapped and gang raped. Violation. Said gang takes video of rape, and makes porno video that goes viral with the rape porno crowd. No violation?
The bolded is the violation indeed. The hypothetical video is definitely not nice or ethical. What's being violated in that, though? It's important not to confuse "is" and "ought". The media already makes vids almost as disgusting viral quite routinely. I've seen some really shocking things on cable news echo chambers. :eek:

ETA: in this hypothetical I wouldn't have grounds to sue over the vid either for a number of elaborate legal reasons I won't get into here.

TheTexan
06-15-2013, 06:40 PM
The bolded is the violation indeed. The hypothetical video is definitely not nice or ethical. What's being violated in that, though? The media already makes vids almost as disgusting viral quite routinely. I've seen some really shocking things on cable news echo chambers. :eek:

ETA: in this hypothetical I wouldn't have grounds to sue over the vid either for a number of elaborate legal reasons I won't get into here.

If you can prove damages (such as losing your job due to the unwanted publicity) I don't see why at least a civil suit wouldn't be in order.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 06:40 PM
The bolded is the violation indeed. The hypothetical video is definitely not nice or ethical. What's being violated in that, though? It's important not to confuse "is" and "ought". The media already makes vids almost as disgusting viral quite routinely. I've seen some really shocking things on cable news echo chambers. :eek:

ETA: in this hypothetical I wouldn't have grounds to sue over the vid either for a number of elaborate legal reasons I won't get into here.

Well there's legal and there is moral. Would you consider yourself further violated by such a video out in the public?

TheTexan
06-15-2013, 06:45 PM
There's so much porn on the internet that if there was never another porn video made, you would still have 800,000,000,000 lifetimes of porn to try to consume.

If possessing kiddy porn photos was decriminalized, and instead LEO focused their efforts on the filmers/producers, eventually the cost of creating new kiddy porn just wouldn't be worth it, because there was already so much available.

Just a thought.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 06:49 PM
There's so much porn on the internet that if there was never another porn video made, you would still have 800,000,000,000 lifetimes of porn to try to consume.

If possessing kiddy porn photos was decriminalized, and instead LEO focused their efforts on the filmers/producers, eventually the cost of creating new kiddy porn just wouldn't be worth it, because there was already so much available.

Just a thought.

Well, that is a great thought. And I have to admit ignorance on this, I literally have no idea.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 07:30 PM
Well there's legal and there is moral. Would you consider yourself further violated by such a video out in the public?
Yes, that's why I made the distinction between "is" and "ought". A person ought not to make this hypothetical vid viral, but the more I try to find an "is", the more it eludes me.

People also ought not to send embarrassing videos of friends/family to America's Funniest Home Videos, but they do it anyway. We can rattle off examples of this from the relatively harmless to extreme, and the principle holds true.

Alex Libman
06-15-2013, 07:41 PM
That is quite debatable on this site. In fact, I would say there are those here who would make rape a unpunishable crime because you can't prove the victim didn't consent.

That's a very complicated discussion, but it doesn't apply to statutory rape - all that needs to be proven there is that the sex took place (and that the adult wasn't the one being raped). The underage person / "dependent" cannot consent. Parents / guardians / "village elders" (as contracted) have the Right to press charges, even if the dependent says it was consensual. (Though the dependent probably should have the special power to pardon upon being emancipated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors) / reaching the age of adulthood.)



Do abuses by the judicial system happen? Obviously. Should viewing child porn that involves actual sex acts be made legal? I don't think that falls under the category of "I'm not hurting anybody".

That's not the rational criteria for what constitutes a crime. I'm hurting myself every time I smoke a cigarette (I'm down to 2-3 a day now). I'm hurting somebody's feelings almost every time I open my mouth. If I'm out on the street (public place) and I see something embarrassing happen to someone, they are hurt by the fact that I was there watching. But it is my Right to do all those things.

People who watch kiddy porn need to be ostracized and/or encouraged to seek medical attention. Society will not forgive this transgression lightly. But making it a criminal matter is not just contrary to a rational philosophy of law, but also very dangerous to everybody's freedom!

kcchiefs6465
06-15-2013, 07:42 PM
That's a HUGE stretch. We already covered that in this thread, though. BTW, you don't have a right to a reputation or self-image or any such thing, so your argument WRT emotional harm in circulation of the pix doesn't quite hold water.
With all due respect I am going to have to disagree. Someone's rape being circulated around the internet does indeed aggress against the victim. Perhaps aggress is that wrong word with regard to libertarian philosophy, it further violates the victim's being.

I agree with prison time for this. It isn't victimless. (not just the making of, but the possession, transfer, etc.)

Philosophically it makes sense in my mind. Possession of child pornography is further perpetrating a crime against the victim. Transfer of the file even moreso.

tangent4ronpaul
06-15-2013, 07:47 PM
Does anyone think I am stretching it with my assertion that possession of child pornography is further aggressing against the victim? Aggressing against their Being, in particular.

I don't get what you mean by "against their being". Please explain.

No I don't agree that it is further agressing against them. If I took a pic of you out on the range and put 50 holes in it each day and you never knew - what harm has come to you? None. If I sent you a vid of my doing that every day, yeah serious psych damage! What you don't know can not hurt you! Not to mention that some of these people do this (put nude pics of themselves out there) because they get off on the idea of people getting off on their bodies... Also kids/teens age rapidly and change appearances. The concept that that someone could be recognized after a few years is is ludicrous.


I don't think it is a stretch to argue as much. (digitally created pornography excluded) You are causing undue emotional harm by continuing to circulate the picture or merely possessing it. There was a victim to begin with.

"victim" really? Like the girls that post on 4chan and anonib with "sup /b/? " and asking for pose requests... Sometimes these "victims" are not so much "victims"... Though the example that came to mind claimed to be 19...


I do believe the law has gotten a little out of hand with how black and white it is. A fifteen year old sends another 15 year old a naked picture and the prosecutor wants to label them sex offenders. That clearly needs to change. But with the case of young children being exploited, I think a case could be made that possession of child pornography does violate the NAP.

A little??? ROTGLMAO!!!!

What is NAP?

-t

tangent4ronpaul
06-15-2013, 08:00 PM
That's a very complicated discussion, but it doesn't apply to statutory rape - all that needs to be proven there is that the sex took place (and that the adult wasn't the one being raped). The underage person / "dependent" cannot consent. Parents / guardians / "village elders" (as contracted) have the Right to press charges, even if the dependent says it was consensual. (Though the dependent probably should have the special power to pardon upon being emancipated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors) / reaching the age of adulthood.)

Should these same ppl say that they think their young charge is mature enough to make their own decisions and engage in such activity if they choose to? Or should your and the states mortality be the law of the land and land you in prison for letting them think for themselves?

-t

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 08:11 PM
With all due respect I am going to have to disagree. Someone's rape being circulated around the internet does indeed aggress against the victim.
How so? You could say it's malicious, but that really doesn't justify calling said action a crime.


Perhaps aggress is that wrong word with regard to libertarian philosophy, it further violates the victim's being.
Is "being" some sort of legal jargon? The way you write it is strange. Rather like indians who think photographs take a piece of one's soul.


I agree with prison time for this. It isn't victimless. (not just the making of, but the possession, transfer, etc.)
I know you believe possession to be a crime, but you haven't offered solid proof or a compelling argument. I really am open to being persuaded, but you haven't done a good job thus far, good sir.


Philosophically it makes sense in my mind. Possession of child pornography is further perpetrating a crime against the victim. Transfer of the file even moreso.
Again, a subjective statement with no proof. Might as well say a photograph takes a bit of your soul and every copy takes a bit more.

Alex Libman
06-15-2013, 08:18 PM
Should these same ppl say that they think their young charge is mature enough to make their own decisions and engage in such activity if they choose to? Or should your and the states mortality be the law of the land and land you in prison for letting them think for themselves?

They (parents, guardians, and possibly even the "village elders") could probably have a conflict of interest, so an independent jury (of reputable adults, who are not ignorant of child development and prior emancipation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors) case studies) would be needed to settle the dispute.

Some children can't think for themselves and be responsible for their actions. That's just a fact of biology. It's true that some kids mature younger than others, which is why we need a legal process of child emancipation, where for example a 14-year-old can say: "sorry, mom; I'm ready to set out on my own; you've been served; see you in court". If the jury agrees, then it's as good as being 18. (And there should be no nonsense about drinking age being 21, etc - either you're a self-owning adult or you're not.)

Of course most families will never have this formal dispute - "18 years and 0 days" seems to be good enough for almost everybody, so it should be the default. Likewise, if a child is mentally handicapped, a similar jury may defer emancipation.

Also, more on that "village elders" I've mentioned above... In a free society, some private neighborhoods / charter cities / churches / other voluntary institutions would still want to "legislate morality" on the basis of contractual agreements, which is perfectly legitimate. "If you want to live in our Victorian Village, you must agree to disallow your children sexual freedom until age X."

Anti Federalist
06-15-2013, 08:55 PM
I have no kids and don't keep up with kids' trends, but I'll take your word for it. Is it true that adverts aimed at kids are more "sexualized" nowadays? I hear people whining about it on teh radio and teh internetz, but I have no interaction with kids' culture so I'm not sure.

Actually, less, IMO.

Can you imagine an ad like this running today?

http://pzrservices.typepad.com/vintageadvertising/images/2007/06/07/creepy_loves_babysoft_ad_70s.jpg

Like most all violent crimes, pedophile rape and abuse is actually way down.

Like most everything else, much of the uproar is the ruling class looking to impose more laws, more rules and more criminal sanctions, on more and more "innocent" and "normal" human interactions in an effort to achieve Full Compliance through Zero Tolerance.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 09:11 PM
That's a very complicated discussion, but it doesn't apply to statutory rape - all that needs to be proven there is that the sex took place (and that the adult wasn't the one being raped). The underage person / "dependent" cannot consent. Parents / guardians / "village elders" (as contracted) have the Right to press charges, even if the dependent says it was consensual. (Though the dependent probably should have the special power to pardon upon being emancipated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors) / reaching the age of adulthood.)




That's not the rational criteria for what constitutes a crime. I'm hurting myself every time I smoke a cigarette (I'm down to 2-3 a day now). I'm hurting somebody's feelings almost every time I open my mouth. If I'm out on the street (public place) and I see something embarrassing happen to someone, they are hurt by the fact that I was there watching. But it is my Right to do all those things.

People who watch kiddy porn need to be ostracized and/or encouraged to seek medical attention. Society will not forgive this transgression lightly. But making it a criminal matter is not just contrary to a rational philosophy of law, but also very dangerous to everybody's freedom!

I fail to see what you doing to yourself smoking a cigarette has in common with child pornography. If the viewer of such (again, I must confess my ignorance on this) is paying to see this or is enriching the scumbag by giving him-her "hits" then the viewer is guilty of the rape and victimization to a lesser extent.

This in no way compares to say a drug transaction where if the drug was no longer prohibited there would be no victim.

Anti Federalist
06-15-2013, 09:27 PM
Then again...there is a whole metric fuck-ton more pr0n than was available in my time.

http://www.rnningfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Cars-Candy-O.jpg

I wore this album out, in more ways than one.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 09:37 PM
Actually, less, IMO.

Can you imagine an ad like this running today?

http://pzrservices.typepad.com/vintageadvertising/images/2007/06/07/creepy_loves_babysoft_ad_70s.jpg

Like most all violent crimes, pedophile rape and abuse is actually way down.

Like most everything else, much of the uproar is the ruling class looking to impose more laws, more rules and more criminal sanctions, on more and more "innocent" and "normal" human interactions in an effort to achieve Full Compliance through Zero Tolerance.
Didn't magazines in the early-mid 20th century have ads for baby hygiene products and such with illustrations of totally nude babies? IDR...my grandparents had collections of magazines from back then and I have very vague memories of them. Most of that shit would get a publisher fined or arrested now. :eek: :(

kcchiefs6465
06-15-2013, 09:38 PM
I don't get what you mean by "against their being". Please explain.

I mean that it is not physically aggressing against them. When I say it is aggressing against their being I am referring to it aggressing against their emotional and mental 'being.' (perhaps there is a better word I could use instead of 'being'.. can't think of one at the moment)



No I don't agree that it is further agressing against them. If I took a pic of you out on the range and put 50 holes in it each day and you never knew - what harm has come to you? None. If I sent you a vid of my doing that every day, yeah serious psych damage! What you don't know can not hurt you! Not to mention that some of these people do this (put nude pics of themselves out there) because they get off on the idea of people getting off on their bodies... Also kids/teens age rapidly and change appearances. The concept that that someone could be recognized after a few years is is ludicrous.
You taking a random picture of someone to the range is not the same as someone being raped, their ordeal being posted on the internet and it being spread around. One might not know the specific person viewing/masturbating to your picture but that is not to say it isn't happening. (referring to a child being raped or molested on camera)

I myself grew up in the era of sexting. It is one thing for someone to send nude photos to another, that person to upload and spread them around. (which is still not the same as what I was referring to of children being exploited by pedophiles and their rape tapes being sold and marketed) As morally wrong as it is for that juvenile to spread another juvenile's pictures around to his or her friends, it is not the same as child rape pictures being circulated.

The problem with a lot of the sexting pictures is that when people share them on facebook or wherever a name accompanies. This will indeed hurt the character as well as affect the being. (though I wouldn't advocate the same punishment for them as someone possessing child pornography in the sense of babies being raped etc.) Teenagers ought to consider who they send their personal pictures to but even then they may come out. The punishments should not be the same.



"victim" really? Like the girls that post on 4chan and anonib with "sup /b/? " and asking for pose requests... Sometimes these "victims" are not so much "victims"... Though the example that came to mind claimed to be 19...
Yes, some girls are whores looking for identity who take provocative pictures for attention. Personally I'd say their fathers should have been present, though who knows the situation. I'd rather not get off onto the subject of morality and the reasons some females seek attention that way.

I know sometimes these 'victims' are not victims. I'm speaking of the victims. Young children who had horrible things done to them. Not some teen showing her boyfriend her tits but a child being raped. If reasonable doubt shows you are the one who accessed those files, I have no problems.... with any punishment that would come their way.



A little??? ROTGLMAO!!!!

Perhaps a little was forgiving. Extremely out of hand. When I was that age cell phone cameras were just coming out and people weren't aware of the 'epidemic.' It was common place before the news articles.



What is NAP?

-t
Non-aggression principle. Which I try to adhere by.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 09:39 PM
I fail to see what you doing to yourself smoking a cigarette has in common with child pornography. If the viewer of such (again, I must confess my ignorance on this) is paying to see this or is enriching the scumbag by giving him-her "hits" then the viewer is guilty of the rape and victimization to a lesser extent.

This in no way compares to say a drug transaction where if the drug was no longer prohibited there would be no victim.
Still awaiting proof of this claim. It's as irrational as saying the viewer of a snuff film is responsible for the content.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 09:52 PM
Still awaiting proof of this claim. It's as irrational as saying the viewer of a snuff film is responsible for the content.

Why don't we just stick to child porn? :) If the person making the film would not make any profit, would they still make the film? Or put more simply, if there was no profit involved, wouldn't the amount of these "movies" drop dramatically?

bolil
06-15-2013, 09:57 PM
Let us have his name, like the pigs do with other suspects.

bolil
06-15-2013, 09:58 PM
Still awaiting proof of this claim. It's as irrational as saying the viewer of a snuff film is responsible for the content.

If person views a snuff film, they have witnessed a murder. Whether or not they choose to say anything about it is on them, but I consider them pieces of shit. And with kiddie porn? Well, there are many oceans in the world and all of them are deep.

A child cannot consent to have sex. Having sex with a child is a violation of their right to themselves. Fuck a kid, and god help you and anyone you love.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 10:04 PM
If person views a snuff film, they have witnessed a murder. Whether or not they choose to say anything about it is on them, but I consider them pieces of shit. And with kiddie porn? Well, there are many oceans in the world and all of them are deep.

A child cannot consent to have sex. Having sex with a child is a violation of their right to themselves. Fuck a kid, and god help you and anyone you love.
Have you read the thread? We are talking about the end user, not the creator(s) of said kiddie porn.

bolil
06-15-2013, 10:06 PM
Have you read the thread? We are talking about the end user, not the creator(s) of said kiddie porn.

EDIT: The use of the word "you" is figurative.

Yup, beat your dick to a child being raped and you are a piece of shit. The same kind of fecal matter that watches a kid get raped on the street and jerks off to it instead of taking that rapist's life, or losing your own in the attempt. I would counsel kiddie porn views to keep that shit very private, the wrong...errr... right people find out and they will be begging for the cops.

EDIT obviouslt I don't mean YOU, but you know what I mean. I guess I should say one.

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 10:09 PM
Why don't we just stick to child porn? :) If the person making the film would not make any profit, would they still make the film? Or put more simply, if there was no profit involved, wouldn't the amount of these "movies" drop dramatically?
Very possible. People do a lot of things for no profit, particularly if it happens to be a passion for them. There are software developers who give their stuff away for free, for example. I know a pro photographer who gives away extremely high quality prints (that could make him plenty of money if he wanted) as gifts for people. I make my art and music available for free downloading and sharing (see sig below). Gary North wrote an economic analysis of the entire bible and makes it available for free download.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 10:10 PM
Very possible. People do a lot of things for no profit, particularly if it happens to be a passion for them. There are software developers who give their stuff away for free, for example. I know a pro photographer who gives away extremely high quality prints (that could make him plenty of money if he wanted) as gifts for people. I make my art and music available for free downloading and sharing (see sig below).

Something tells me these folks aren't the charitable type. (though they might hand a few out to their sick fuck buddies who like raping kids too)

heavenlyboy34
06-15-2013, 10:14 PM
Something tells me these folks aren't the charitable type. (though they might hand a few out to their sick fuck buddies who like raping kids too)
I thought they posted their ickyness on the interwebz (which is how teh cops catch them, as I hear in the news sometimes). But WTF do I know? /shrugs It's a k.o.o.k.-y (Keepers Of Odd Knowledge) field I don't know much about.

bolil
06-15-2013, 10:16 PM
I thought they posted their ickyness on the interwebz (which is how teh cops catch them, as I hear in the news sometimes). But WTF do I know? /shrugs It's a k.o.o.k.-y (Keepers Of Odd Knowledge) field I don't know much about.

THat is fine, I am not about to justify the NSA to catch kiddie porn viewers... I would prefer they be caught privately and dealt with privately. Watching child pornography is little different than watching a child be raped on the street, obviously the onlooker shouldn't be made a criminal by their cowardice but if that coward starts masturbating to it, that is new thing altogether. A thing that shouldn't fall under the laws of men, but the laws of something greater. Who is to administer that law... I don't know. I think I would take my chances, if opportunity presented itself and guilt was a certainty,

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 10:21 PM
THat is fine, I am not about to justify the NSA to catch kiddie porn viewers... I would prefer they be caught privately and dealt with privately. Watching child pornography is little different than watching a child be raped on the street.

I am not trying to justify the NSA. :rolleyes:

bolil
06-15-2013, 10:28 PM
I am not trying to justify the NSA. :rolleyes:

I never meant to insinuate that you did or were. I was just speaking for myself, apologies for the confusion.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 10:33 PM
I never meant to insinuate that you did or were. I was just speaking for myself, apologies for the confusion.

S' all good. I think we're pretty much on the same track, as much as that's possible around here....:p

tangent4ronpaul
06-15-2013, 10:56 PM
Why don't we just stick to child porn? :) If the person making the film would not make any profit, would they still make the film? Or put more simply, if there was no profit involved, wouldn't the amount of these "movies" drop dramatically?

Do you remember playing doctor w/ your sister or cousin? I'l show you mine if you show me yours? That sort of thing?

What did you get out of it?

Ummm, yeah...

-t

bolil
06-15-2013, 10:58 PM
Do you remember playing doctor w/ your sister or cousin? I'l show you mine if you show me yours? That sort of thing?

What did you get out of it?

Ummm, yeah...

-t

Obviously there is a difference between two contemporaries playing doctor and raping a kid on film and disseminating it. Even nude pictures are a violation a child's right to own themselves. Profit is irrelevant, to me. Now, where would I draw the line... consent. How to establish a being's ability to consent? Nodding yes is not consent, not struggling is not consent. Age is arbitrary and tests are evaluated, arbitrarily...

I would go for a test, a logic based test. If your test result shows you can actually agree to a thing, go crazy. I will still spit on any man that 'gets with' anyone under 16.

Origanalist
06-15-2013, 11:08 PM
Do you remember playing doctor w/ your sister or cousin? I'l show you mine if you show me yours? That sort of thing?

What did you get out of it?

Ummm, yeah...

-t

So you deny my premise that if there were no profit the volume of these films would drop dramatically? I in no way am implying they would cease to exist.

Alex Libman
06-16-2013, 04:35 PM
I fail to see what you doing to yourself smoking a cigarette has in common with child pornography.

I've methodologically discredited the link between "hurting" and crime. You can "hurt" without initiating aggression against anyone.



If the viewer of such (again, I must confess my ignorance on this) is paying to see this or is enriching the scumbag by giving him-her "hits" then the viewer is guilty of the rape and victimization to a lesser extent.

As I've thoroughly explained on the old thread I've linked to (http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-120973.html), selling "kiddy porn" in a free society is like selling air. You don't have to pay to search for anything else, like with Google Images. Terabytes of "kiddy porn" exist already. There are 7+ billion people in the world, many of whom (http://populationpyramid.net/WORLD/2015/) are teenagers, and pretty soon each of them will have access to a PC cam, smartphone, etc. Thousands upon thousands of new "kiddy porn" pictures / videos are being produced every day. The only reason why it would be sold is because it's illegal, in which case the buyer is paying for the risk of distribution.



This in no way compares to say a drug transaction where if the drug was no longer prohibited there would be no victim.

No, it is a different example of hurtful behavior that doesn't constitute a crime.

Alex Libman
06-16-2013, 04:59 PM
A child cannot consent to have sex. Having sex with a child is a violation of their right to themselves. Fuck a kid, and god help you and anyone you love.

Reminder: "child pornography" doesn't have to involve children.

It can be a person legally emancipated (and thus no longer a "child") before age "18 years and 0 days". Some prodigies have even earned a Ph.D (http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2012/04/02/the-10-youngest-phds-of-all-time/) (and not in "liberal arts", but a real Ph.D) before turning 18!

It can be a drawing. As technology advances, constructed art will become indistinguishable from photographs / movies / real-time 3D holographic renderings. (And if that keeps pedophiles from hurting any actual children, then it's probably a good thing.)

And, for any transhumanists here - it can be a 140-year-old person who chooses to look 14.

bolil
06-16-2013, 08:07 PM
Reminder: "child pornography" doesn't have to involve children.

It can be a person legally emancipated (and thus no longer a "child") before age "18 years and 0 days". Some prodigies have even earned a Ph.D (http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2012/04/02/the-10-youngest-phds-of-all-time/) (and not in "liberal arts", but a real Ph.D) before turning 18!

It can be a drawing. As technology advances, constructed art will become indistinguishable from photographs / movies / real-time 3D holographic renderings. (And if that keeps pedophiles from hurting any actual children, then it's probably a good thing.)

And, for any transhumanists here - it can be a 140-year-old person who chooses to look 14.

Look, I already addressed that but I understand that it is tiring to look through the history of a thread.

An animated character isn't sentient, which makes such things irrelevant. A 140 year old who chooses to look 14... good luck, botox is better spent on dystonia patients.

Any instance of a person making, disseminating, or consuming any media involving the actual rape of a child... well, like I said the earth is covered with ocean and all of them are deep.

Watching a child raped on film is little different than watching one get raped on the street. I do not believe that standing by idly should be a crime, as you've no direct victim. Pulling out your dick, and beating it as a child is raped is another thing altogether, it is the active attainment of pleasure at anothers being victim of a crime, and while it might be beyond the domain of the laws of men to punish, it is not beyond the touch of the laws of my god.

No serious liberty adherent considers child rape (look back at what I've said constitutes a child) victimless.

Alex Libman
06-16-2013, 10:06 PM
Your post jumps from one emotion to another, but comes nowhere close to making a logical argument for a prohibition on 1's and 0's that may be interpreted as "kiddy porn"...

I've made a solid case for why this prohibition is irrational, pointless, and dangerous to everyone's freedom.

bolil
06-16-2013, 10:33 PM
Your post jumps from one emotion to another, but comes nowhere close to making a logical argument for a prohibition on 1's and 0's that may be interpreted as "kiddy porn"...

I've made a solid case for why this prohibition is irrational, pointless, and dangerous to everyone's freedom.

Have you? You don't read what I write and then revert to the default: Appeal to emotion, illogical, wahhhhhh bullshit.

Please explain to me how watching a child be raped in person is any different than watching one be raped in 1's and 0's, removing from the issue, for now, the pleasure aspect. While you are at it, show me how watching an actual snuff film is any different than witnessing a murder?

At what age, would you say, consent could be granted? Will you make such an arbitrary distinction?

Alex Libman
06-17-2013, 12:37 PM
Have you? You don't read what I write and then revert to the default: Appeal to emotion, illogical, wahhhhhh bullshit.

You have it entirely backwards.



Please explain to me how watching a child be raped in person is any different than watching one be raped in 1's and 0's, removing from the issue, for now, the pleasure aspect.

As I've explained multiple times: not all "child pornography" is rape. If you think about it, it should be a very small fraction. Do the math: almost every teenager has a camera and Internet access, but only a tiny fraction of teenagers are raped by adults on video. And people who rape kids probably don't want to leave behind video evidence of their crime. (If own life experience is relevant: there are naked pictures of me as a kid, and back in high school lots of teens I knew exchanged pics, like on IRC -- a decade before the smartphone age -- but I don't know anyone who was raped on video.) But, regardless of probabilities, Presumption of Innocence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence) still applies.

You seem to be pushing some sort of a Good Samaritan Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law), obligating people to confront production of "child pornography". (If one sees a 17-year-old point a phone down his/her pants, with video live-streaming to something like Qik.com, one is somehow obligated to swoop in and save the day?!) Such laws don't integrate very well with a rational legal philosophy, but even if they did - they don't apply to watching a video of the alleged crime. If you are watching an alleged crime committed in real life, you don't need to travel through much space and time to prevent it. If you're watching a video, you don't know the identities of the people involved, etc. And pretty soon, as technology moves forward at an accelerating rate, it will be impossible to tell if someone is 16 or 40, or if it's a real video or a fictitious artistic rendering.



While you are at it, show me how watching an actual snuff film is any different than witnessing a murder?

At least four dimensions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime) are different.

Pointing a fire extinguisher at a screen playing the Hindenburg disaster newsreel footage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster_newsreel_footage) will not save them.



At what age, would you say, consent could be granted? Will you make such an arbitrary distinction?

"18 years and 0 days" seems to be the culturally-accepted norm for full self-ownership. Of course sufficient legal consent can be granted earlier, with added permission of parents / guardians / "village elders". It should also be possible for a dependent to be legally emancipated (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors) (become a self-owning adult before the default age) by a jury based on competence, and it should be possible for the default emancipation age to be deferred due to mental illness.

bolil
06-17-2013, 05:38 PM
You have it entirely backwards.




As I've explained multiple times: not all "child pornography" is rape. If you think about it, it should be a very small fraction. Do the math: almost every teenager has a camera and Internet access, but only a tiny fraction of teenagers are raped by adults on video. And people who rape kids probably don't want to leave behind video evidence of their crime. (If own life experience is relevant: there are naked pictures of me as a kid, and back in high school lots of teens I knew exchanged pics, like on IRC -- a decade before the smartphone age -- but I don't know anyone who was raped on video.) But, regardless of probabilities, Presumption of Innocence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence) still applies.

You seem to be pushing some sort of a Good Samaritan Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law), obligating people to confront production of "child pornography". (If one sees a 17-year-old point a phone down his/her pants, with video live-streaming to something like Qik.com, one is somehow obligated to swoop in and save the day?!) Such laws don't integrate very well with a rational legal philosophy, but even if they did - they don't apply to watching a video of the alleged crime. If you are watching an alleged crime committed in real life, you don't need to travel through much space and time to prevent it. If you're watching a video, you don't know the identities of the people involved, etc. And pretty soon, as technology moves forward at an accelerating rate, it will be impossible to tell if someone is 16 or 40, or if it's a real video or a fictitious artistic rendering.




At least four dimensions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime) are different.

Pointing a fire extinguisher at a screen playing the Hindenburg disaster newsreel footage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster_newsreel_footage) will not save them.




"18 years and 0 days" seems to be the culturally-accepted norm for full self-ownership. Of course sufficient legal consent can be granted earlier, with added permission of parents / guardians / "village elders". It should also be possible for a dependent to be legally emancipated (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors) (become a self-owning adult before the default age) by a jury based on competence, and it should be possible for the default emancipation age to be deferred due to mental illness.

You are considering a teenager a child when I consider a teenager more of an adult, provided they do not have any grievous developmental problems. Or, you could be being disingenuous. If you were a child, still, at 17... woe thy name is Alex. You need to go back, through my posts, and read what I say before you call me impervious to logic in a -rep, which is ironically, a puerile thing to do.

So let me ask you this: If, somehow, you discovered your neighbor watching a seven year old girl get raped on a video you would not through whatever means necessary get to the bottom of it? Might be a virtual thing, but if it is the real thing then the only ethical thing you could do is act. Or, if it is your thing, join in.

If I watched a tape of you being robbed, and then beaten severely am I not morally responsible, if not legally obligated, to seeing that you get justice? Then again, I am the kind of person that returns wallets with the money still in them and cannot assume you would understand my thinking.

Alex Libman
06-17-2013, 07:07 PM
The definition of "child pornography" is any nude and/or sexual depiction of a person under the age of 18 years. The picture my parents innocently took of me in a bathtub when I was about a year old, which didn't seem that unusual by the cultural norms of that day, is "child pornography". If you were to walk through a village in Africa with Google Glass, you'd capture at least a dozen separate instances of "child pornography" from all the kids running around buck-naked. A lot of classical art is "child pornography". A 17-year-old "sexting" a nude photo from his/her smartphone is "child pornography". From what I understand, both in terms of "supply" and "demand" - most of it is high school students.

If I had "discovered my neighbor watching a seven year old girl get raped on a video", I would use my judgement to decide whether it was an artistic thought experiment, or an active and dangerous psycho-sexual addiction. If the latter, I might announce my observations publicly, so that people who might have trusted him to be their babysitter would take it into consideration. Then again, the current hysteria about this particular kind of mental illness might deter me, because I don't think anyone should be condemned to a life of imprisonment (even if he gets out someday, a "sex offender registry" is hardly freedom) for thought-crime alone!

You're making ridiculous leaps from Good Samaritan moral ideals to legal obligations, and thus to being an apologist for a tyrannical system that throws people in prison for possession of 1's and 0's, and constitutes the greatest threat to Internet freedom for all mankind!