# Child Pornography Legal To View Online In New York - WHAT?!?!



## Mike Marino (May 10, 2012)

Court Rules Looking At Porn Doesn't Mean Possession

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ork-porn-possession-james-kent_n_1505916.html

I read it twice to make sure it wasn't a joke or that I missed something. Wow.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 10, 2012)

Let me ask this:

Should looking at things that are illegal be illegal? 

Should viewing pictures of child porn be illegal?

Should viewing pictures of a murder (not self defense) be illegal?

Should viewing pictures of a brick of cocaine be illegal?

Child porn is disgusting, yes. But if _only viewing _something illegal is illegal, what is next?


----------



## gsilbers (May 10, 2012)

i agree with riff.

the new headlines just want the controversial attention and add to the yellow jounalism that its now a norm. 

dont know what yellow journalism is? look it up.


----------



## Mike Marino (May 10, 2012)

The difference is that they're children....and children are supposed to be protected from crap like this.


----------



## chimuelo (May 10, 2012)

It's stenography. Real journalists are in foreign countries fighting to get in and report from the ground, or investigate crimes, etc.
Most media outlets have well paid Biased Parrots, and half the time are so biased as they scurry to be first, they leave fact checking for later.

Here's something to consider too, I admit I love woman and like to see the newest rage of thin gals that are stacked, I am not ashamed as I was addicted through my DNA of the creator of that DNA, my horny father, so I check on the latest babe, but never pay for some site as I prefer hardware/software/manuscripts, etc.

But then you start getting links listed as Slim and stacked and you open it up and it's definately a very young gal, so I don't watch it but for a few seconds until I ascertain it's a little young, probably 17-21 year old yet in some states that is considered a child. But that is grounds for raiding someone as the link leasd to an IPS where a warrant can be obtained with little effort. 
I believe California is 16 which to me is pretty young and it seems stupid anyways, but to be arrested becasue some porno poll, probably Frank Lutz or Gallup, says men over 30 years old love tenage women, is just not true.

I actually saw Debbie Boone on a recent commercial singing a disusting star search ballad about lighting up her life, and even though the song was making me nauscious, I thought she was a babe. Especially for 60+.

Besides young gals are nothing but trouble and romance without finance is a nusance.
But it's' nice to see in a Police State like New York that something is legal still.
A beautiful gal is a beautiful women, but a young girl just reminds me of a freinds daughter or something and I cannot watch that, but why should someone tell me what I can and cannot do? 
Plus if it might keep freaks at their PC all night instead of drinking and stalking, freedom might be the right choice.
Does this mean Pete Townsend will move to New York...?


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2012)

Mike Marino @ Thu May 10 said:


> The difference is that they're children....and children are supposed to be protected from crap like this.



Everybody should be protected from non-consenting sexual exploitation, including adults.

Let me propose some food for thought -- regardless of how icky we might find these scenarios, let's just consider the legal aspect of it:

Should child pornography be declared illegal if it's entirely created through CGI/digital modeling means?

If a company manufactures sex dolls that resemble children, is that company breaking the law?


Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not even remotely condoning child pornography, but from a legal standpoint it might be necessary to make a clear distinction between victimization of actual children or just a disturbing fetish played out on inanimate or artificial objects.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 10, 2012)

I may have missed some of the details of this, but is this ruling on a technicality? I think it's saying it's illegal to specifically download any images / videos, but if those images / videos are automatically stored in a cache then that isn't illegal? Playing devil's advocate, I can sort of see a logic there - if someone genuinely accidentally stumbles across an image, then that then is not a crime.

However, if that's the argument here, I still think it's BS. I don't think that, in practice anyone would ever get convicted if it were an honest single mistake under current laws. The key is if you "accidentally" stumble across several thousand images, and of course it doesn't matter remotely if these have been downloaded or viewed online. Some have used a defence of "research" - that's perhaps better dealt with in other ways (perhaps there could even be a way of informing authorities if you genuinely have a demonstrable academic reason for needing to view sites - in fact, again, I'd assume that this was already possible).

No, none of the arguments really hold up to me - this is a very dangerous bit of lawmaking. Mike and Kays are spot on, the difference with child pornography is basic child protection. If there is ANY sense that this is actually legally ok in some circumstances, one shudders to think of the implications.


----------



## MacQ (May 11, 2012)

This is a complicated issue.

To add to the debate -- does access to these images encourage or dissuade pedophiles from attempting real-life contact/abuse of children? Does the access to images defuse their impulsively deviant behaviour privately, or merely add fuel to the fire?

I can't speak to the motivations behind the behaviour, but I'm wondering if it exists in the same way "mainstream" pornography provides sexual variety (and even the simulation of infidelity) without personal consequences for the viewer?

I obviously want to see all child abuse everywhere eradicated forever, but to make a move toward that end, knowing that pedophiles cannot seem to control their impulses, do we keep them virtually penned and fed, or do we let them loose to hunt as predators?

Either way, I'm a strong advocate for mandatory castration of repeat sex offenders. If you can't control yourself, you forfeit your rights. Behavioural "reform" of these individuals (especially sex offenders) is impossible in my view, but if we can attack the problem chemically, why don't we try? We're already killing criminals ... why can't we make pedophiles asexual eunuchs? I know that the science is inconclusive, but it would at least be a pretty strong deterrent, no?

~Stu


----------



## wst3 (May 11, 2012)

I'm a parent, three youngsters and an adult step-daughter. I flip out when a guy mistreats the step-daughter, I can't imagine what I'd do if someone went after one of the younger three.

But I'm also of the opinion that most of the original Bill of Rights was put into play to protect us from our government. And I think that's a really good idea.

I do NOT want to see some unfortunate person trip over a kiddie porn image and be branded for life.

But I also don't want a pedophile hurting children. EVER!

Is viewing child pornography part of the problem? It probably is, but the experts still don't agree.

So I look at it from a slightly different perspective... we need to STOP the creation of child pornography. We may not be able to prove that viewing it leads to harming children, but we can darned well prove that creating it does.

You probably have to go after those that view to find those that create, and that's marginally OK with me. I wish there was a way to go directly after the creators.

And no, I do not believe that any of our current laws protect the creation of child pornography... no way, no how. There are limits to individual freedoms, they are difficult to define in some cases, but this is not one of them!


----------



## Ed (May 11, 2012)

This is probably inappropriate. OH DANNY you were a joker back in the day. :D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 11, 2012)

Once again, the idea that there are a bunch of things that viewing should be illegal and there should be nothing that is illegal to view are equally misguided.

Viewing child porn is illegal and should be.


----------



## midphase (May 11, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri May 11 said:


> Viewing child porn is illegal and should be.



But should it be illegal because it was generated by non-consensual abuse of the victim or because it's an aberrant behavior that society frowns upon?

For instance, it's not illegal (I don't think) for someone to watch a video of a guy being murdered. It's not illegal to watch a photo of a person shoplifting something.

I think we first need to define exactly "why" is it illegal to watch child porn. If the illegality is deemed to be dependent to the idea that a child was harmed during the creation of said image, then I ask once again (by that logic) should it be illegal for someone to watch child porn if it was entirely CGI and computer generated (I.E. no real children had been harmed in the making of said image)?


----------



## midphase (May 11, 2012)

P.S.

Amazing the things people got to sing about in the 80's! Danny...care to explain the inspiration for that song?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 11, 2012)

midphase @ Fri May 11 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri May 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Viewing child porn is illegal and should be.
> ...



I can make an argument either way as to why CGI should or should not be illegal but when real children are involved, to me it is clear to me and frankly, IMHO it should be clear to any psychologically healthy adult. (Not saying you are not, Kays)


----------



## midphase (May 11, 2012)

This is a difficult subject to discuss for obvious reasons.

But as far as the law is concerned, we need to take a moment to detach ourselves from the emotional side of the issue and look at it from a more pragmatic and analytical perspective.

Once again, I ask: why is it illegal (not immoral, inhuman, or however else people chose to define it) to watch child porn?

I think it's very important to have a clear definition of the law regarding this because the repercussions of how the law is defined can have a wider impact well beyond child porn.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (May 11, 2012)

midphase @ Fri May 11 said:


> Mike Marino @ Thu May 10 said:
> 
> 
> > The difference is that they're children....and children are supposed to be protected from crap like this.
> ...


For those that think Midphase is out of line with the CGI argument, consider the fact that everyday, millions of people commit bloody virtual murder(s) and get away with it.
It doesn't seem to shock many people...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 11, 2012)

This is a very difficult thing to legislate. What's easy is the principle: anything that encourages abuse of children has to be illegal. I'm not sure where that line is.

If you skim the article, the images the professor "downloaded" were in browser caches. Did he just click on a bunch of links by mistake?

And the CGI argument is also difficult. Patrick is right: people view all kinds of violence all the time, yet they don't commit real violence.

I think the implication in the title of this thread is not what's going on at all. Nobody wants to make pedophilia legal.


----------



## Niah (May 11, 2012)

midphase @ Sat May 12 said:


> But as far as the law is concerned, we need to take a moment to detach ourselves from the emotional side of the issue and look at it from a more pragmatic and analytical perspective.



Absolutely.

I totally agree that when real children are involved it's very questionable but lets not forget that child pornography can be just about anything including literature. I think midphase makes a great point about CGI which reminds me of that company that produces "real dolls" and one of the costumers once asked for a child version of it.

And what about studies like this that show that viewing pornography can actually decrease rape? 

http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf (http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.e ... s/porn.pdf)

Lots to think about.


----------



## Ed (May 11, 2012)

I think its because rightly or wrongly it is the general understanding that if you watch child porn (as in for sexual gratification like normal porn) you will also act on it. Therefore the logic I think is that someone who watches it must therefore also abuse kids or will abuse kids, and be locked up away from children. Is there other illegal porn? Are snuff films illegal to watch?


----------



## Niah (May 11, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 12 said:


> This is a very difficult thing to legislate. What's easy is the principle: anything that encourages abuse of children has to be illegal. I'm not sure where that line is.
> 
> If you skim the article, the images the professor "downloaded" were in browser caches. Did he just click on a bunch of links by mistake?
> 
> ...



Yea but doesn't NAMBLA encourages the abuse of children? As far I know it still exists and it's not an illegal organization.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder you can't make it legal or illegal.


----------



## midphase (May 11, 2012)

Well, Newt Gingrich must have a mental disorder!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ly-stupid/


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 11, 2012)

midphase @ Fri May 11 said:


> Well, Newt Gingrich must have a mental disorder!



Was that ever in doubt?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 11, 2012)

> Pedophilia is a mental disorder you can't make it legal or illegal.



I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, Niah.



> ...rightly or wrongly it is the general understanding that if you watch child porn (as in for sexual gratification like normal porn) you will also act on it..



I hope wrongly, because fantasies and compulsions are two very different things.

But the other part of this is that the market for child porn is also illegal, and for obvious reasons.


----------



## nikolas (May 11, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Fri May 11 said:


> Let me ask this:
> 
> Should looking at things that are illegal be illegal?
> 
> ...


Quick question...

If your son was molested and then put on youtube (say now)... you wouldn't mind it, or find it illegal to do so? Because viewing is not illegal, just doing it?!?!?!

Or I'm not getting you right, riff?

Child pornography should be illegal, because the kids should be protected, and the image of the kids is important! PERIOD from me (a father of two young children)


----------



## RiffWraith (May 11, 2012)

nikolas @ Sat May 12 said:


> If your son was molested and then put on youtube (say now)... you wouldn't mind it, or find it illegal to do so? Because viewing is not illegal, just doing it?!?!?!



Of course I would mind it - to say the least - who wouldn't? As for it being illegal for someone else to view that - as much as it sickens me to say this - yes, it would be legal. Same way as it is legal for other people to view other illegal activities.



nikolas @ Sat May 12 said:


> Or I'm not getting you right, riff?



Perhaps you are not. Look at it this way: if the viewing of child pornography is illegal, then the viewing of _anything_ illegal has to be illegal. The viewing of a person running a red light would have to be illegal. Those two crimes are not nearly on the same level, but they are both illegal, right? You say the viewing of child porn has to be illegal - because we need to protect the children. Ok, well the viewing of running a red light has to be illegal - because we need to protect pedestrians and other motorists. How many children are molested ever year, and how many pedestrians and motorists are killed in car accidents every year? What's worse, a person losing their life in a car accident, or a child being molested? We need to protect children - yes of course. But we also need to protect people from car accidents, and being maimed and killed, no?

Just because child porn sickens most (I hope all) of us moreso than most other crimes, doesn't make it different than other crimes when it comes to only viewing. I don't disagree with most of the sentiment here, but you have to look at this from a legal perspective - not an emotional one. Again, if the viewing of child pornography is illegal, then the viewing of anything illegal has to be illegal. Or is it right to make viewing some illegal activities illegal, and the viewing of other illegal activities legal? Again, think from a legal perspective here - not an emotional one.


----------



## nikolas (May 11, 2012)

Riff, there' s a major difference between a crime involving 2 adults, car accidents, etc and a crime involving children. You need to protect the children at all costs, including their image! I'm not talking to a link "child pornography is legal, and it sells thus lets find more children" (which is a bit obvious for me), but I'm talking about their image. The image of a child who would like to forget but the internet links will always remain!

There's a huge difference between illegal anything and illegal involving children! They cannot be protected on their own, there is 'they should've known better', because they can't and we as society need to do this! And this is from a legal point of view, as far as I'm concerned. Pornography is personal, the most personal parts of your body are revealed; it's not a car accident (unless you're idiot enough to put a camera on the windscreen hoping to catch you while you kill yourself... in which case AGAIN you're an adult and chose to do it).


----------



## midphase (May 12, 2012)

Nikolas,

It sounds to me like you are (like many others) speaking from an emotional gut reaction as a father. However, I do think that Riff brings up some legitimate questions.

First of all (this is such a touchy subject) let's clarify for a moment that nobody in this discussion is advocating, legitimizing, justifying or even loosely attempting to defend child pornography. 

Are we all clear about that? Good.

Ok..now let's continue as rational adults...

When you say "protect children at all costs" what does that mean exactly? Because harming a child is already protected by the law, just like harming an adult is. We can all agree that the creation of illegal pornography should be prosecuted under all circumstances. With children, we automatically know that it wasn't consensual, but there are other forms of non-consensual pornography that affect adults as well.

Clear so far? Good.

Ok, so it seems like most people would want the prosecution of anyone found holding a child pornography video, right?

What about a person found in possession of a video of a woman being raped? Should that also automatically result into arrest and prosecution? Yes?

What about a photograph of a person being sexually humiliated against his/her will? Should someone found in possession of such photograph be arrested as well?

Is your answer still yes?

Ok, then answer this. By that logic, should everyone who has seen this photo be found guilty of having committed a crime and be arrested for breaking the law?

http://www.nasa-intelligence.com/infocu ... b/abu4.jpg


Do you see where I'm getting at? It's a slippery slope and most definitely not as black and white of an issue as it might appear at first from an emotional gut reaction.

This issue by the way, also ties in somewhat to abortion law. When people start saying that children deserve an exceptional treatment under the law, then other people start arguing as to what defines a child and how early in the development of a fetus can a child be considered a child. And then we arrive at laws such as the one which just passed in Arizona which would declare the fetus a child even before it's conceived.


----------



## nikolas (May 12, 2012)

Kays,

The point I'm getting is that the image of the children is very importat. Their face, body exposed to the public means great harm, that's what I'm getting. The image you linked is harmful, but the face is not shown (of the victim). And yes, women raped should be illegal to be viewed.

Now, something to be clear. I would argue that it should be very illegal to upload stuff, rather than viewing alone. (Arizona is run by idiots apparently... :D, but I won't get dragged to such a discsussion... I'm just trolling right here!)


----------



## nikolas (May 12, 2012)

Kays,

The point I'm getting is that the image of the children is very importat. Their face, body exposed to the public means great harm, that's what I'm getting. The image you linked is harmful, but the face is not shown (of the victim). And yes, women raped should be illegal to be viewed.

Now, something to be clear. I would argue that it should be very illegal to upload stuff, rather than viewing alone. (Arizona is run by idiots apparently... :D, but I won't get dragged to such a discsussion... I'm just trolling right here!)


----------



## Niah (May 12, 2012)

Another thing I what to mention:

I see an increase of parents exposing their children more and more by placing photos of them, videos, etc, on the internet available to everyone.

I'm really not sure if some understand that a pedophile can "get off" by viewing this type of material even if it's not sexual in nature.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 12, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Fri May 11 said:


> . Look at it this way: if the viewing of child pornography is illegal, then the viewing of _anything_ illegal has to be illegal. viewing some illegal activities illegal, and the viewing of other illegal activities legal? Again, think from a legal perspective here - not an emotional one.



The idea that the law (or anything else) cannot make distinctions and must have a consistent blanket approach is not giving the human intellect much credit. We make distinctions like murder is wrong but killing in self-defense is not. Here in the U.S. we prosecute some crimes more severely because we consider them "hate crimes". The law does not have to be 100% consistent to be just.

Viewing images of child pornography is more heinous than everything else for the simple reason that children rely on adults to protect them, not sexualize them. There is nothing wrong in treating the viewing of child pornography differently because it IS different.


----------



## Daryl (May 12, 2012)

Niah @ Sat May 12 said:


> Another thing I what to mention:
> 
> I see an increase of parents exposing their children more and more by placing photos of them, videos, etc, on the internet available to everyone.
> 
> I'm really not sure if some understand that a pedophile can "get off" by viewing this type of material even if it's not sexual in nature.


However this can get ridiculous. Parents are no longer allowed to film their child in a swimming gala unless all the parents agree, and even then sometimes the event thinks it's too risky. This is not protecting children, it's just political correctness gone nuts.

D


----------



## midphase (May 12, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat May 12 said:


> The idea that the law (or anything else) cannot make distinctions and must have a consistent blanket approach is not giving the human intellect much credit.



It's not necessarily that the law can not make distinctions as much as people's definitions and expectations of justice are very different from person to person (as we're seeing in the abortion debates).

Here is a clear example -- define "child"

Simple right? Well...define it.

If you say "anyone under the age of 18", then are you suggesting that a suggestive photograph of an 8 year old or a 17 year old should be treated the same under the law? Not too long ago, 15 was considered a good age for a girl to get married at...in many cultures that still is. Several states of the union have ages of consent at low as 16, in Connecticut 13 is some cases. Mexico's age of consent...12!


----------



## Ed (May 12, 2012)

In the UK age of consent is also 16.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 12, 2012)

What about all the pictures of young girls in African tribes or in medical pictures? Those don't seem to be illegal.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2012)

> Look at it this way: if the viewing of child pornography is illegal, then the viewing of anything illegal has to be illegal. The viewing of a person running a red light would have to be illegal.



Not at all, and I can't believe you have your heart in that argument.

Once again, the obvious difference is that by viewing child pornography you're part of the market for it. Same with real rape pornography, as Niklas says.

And while Jay sounds suspiciously like that offensive talk show rabbi, he's right too. There are slight differences between running red lights and destroying childrens' lives.


----------



## chimuelo (May 12, 2012)

I tell my wife to get rid of her Tracy Lords videos....


----------



## midphase (May 12, 2012)

Sell them on eBay...they're probably worth a fortune now!


----------



## midphase (May 12, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 12 said:


> Not at all, and I can't believe you have your heart in that argument.




Nick, let's try not to make personal innuendo in this discussion. The subject matter is extremely difficult to talk about...we have to have a clear understanding that we are all arguing from an objective point and in many cases playing the devil's advocate to explore all facets of this discussion and how it could impact the law. Think of it as a similar discussion as to what might be a debate team. Sometimes you are asked to argue for a side that you don't necessarily agree with, but the bottom line is that only by exploring both sides of the issue can we come to a real understanding of the factors involved.

So please everyone...lay off any hinting that anyone here is trying to defend child pornography because that is simply not the case.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2012)

There's absolutely no personal innuendo in that at all, Kays. It didn't occur to me that he was defending child pornography, and I have no problem talking about the subject.

My argument is with what I consider to be absurd logic: that if viewing child pornography is illegal then viewing everything has to be.

I don't expect you to follow every one of my posts with bated breath, but I also agreed with Patrick's point earlier - that we view murders all the time.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 12, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun May 13 said:


> > Look at it this way: if the viewing of child pornography is illegal, then the viewing of anything illegal has to be illegal. The viewing of a person running a red light would have to be illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, and I can't believe you have your heart in that argument.



Well, if you quote me like that, then it seems like I am an idiot. What about the rest of what I said? And for having my heart in that argument - I do not. And that's the difference here. With my heart in the discussion, I would say viewing child porn should be illegal. But as I pointed out before, I am detaching myself from this emotionally. Not an easy thing to do, based on the subject nature, and the way I feel about people who hurt children. But if you look at this from an emotional perspective - it sure as hell is real easy to say that viewing child porn should be illegal. And that's what you guys are doing - you are typing away at your keyboard using your emotions. You may not realize it, but you are. Not that that's wrong; it sure isn't. But looking at this from purely a legal perspective, I have to question why viewing of child porn (and not taking part) would be illegal, if looking at other things that are illegal is not.



> There are slight differences between running red lights and destroying childrens' lives.



What are they? A child gets raped, and that child's (person's) life is potentailly ruined - yes. Put the person responsible away? Definitely. A person gets drunk off of his arse, gets behind the wheel of a car because he simply does not care, blows a light, and hits a 20 year-old pedestrian. That pedestrian loses both of his arms. Life ruined? Absolutely. Put the motorist away? Definitely.

In both those cases, there is cause and effect. In both those cases, the perpetrator knew exactly what he was doing, and knew that there are potential disastrous consequences. In both those cases, two lives were ruined. Which is worse? Some would actually argue the pedestrian's situation is worse. With the right support and therapy, the child can grow up to lead a somewhat normal life. Hopefully. For the guy with no arms, there is _no_ hope. How's he going to lead anywhere near a normal life? So which is worse? They both are at least pretty close, when you look at the consequence of each. So, should we make the viewing of such a motor accident illegal? Or is the motor accident ok to view because the consequence is physical, whereas the child rape is more emotional - at least long-term?

Answer from a legal perspective - not an emotional one.

Cheers.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 12, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Sat May 12 said:


> What about all the pictures of young girls in African tribes or in medical pictures? Those don't seem to be illegal.



That's different. Not sure about the medical pictures, but for the African tribes - that's part of their society, and the way they have lead their lives since they came to being. And no one is getting hurt there. Not the same as with child porn.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 12, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sat May 12 said:


> choc0thrax @ Sat May 12 said:
> 
> 
> > What about all the pictures of young girls in African tribes or in medical pictures? Those don't seem to be illegal.
> ...



But what if a pedophile has a kid and raises him/her in a way that being naked and "playing" around in front of a camera is a normal, fun thing? No one's getting hurt.


----------



## Ed (May 12, 2012)

Choco trollin'


----------



## Ed (May 12, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 12 said:


> My argument is with what I consider to be absurd logic: that if viewing child pornography is illegal then viewing everything has to be.



I think the more specific question is, is viewing rape illegal? Not simulated rape, I mean an actual crime.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 12, 2012)

Ed @ Sat May 12 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 12 said:
> 
> 
> > My argument is with what I consider to be absurd logic: that if viewing child pornography is illegal then viewing everything has to be.
> ...



I'd say it's slightly less illegal than viewing a murder. Having seen the JFK Zapruder film I just hope that living on ground level doesn't hurt my chances of having a SWAT team rappel through my windows. Cause that would totally rock.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 13, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sat May 12 said:


> what you guys are doing - you are typing away at your keyboard using your emotions. You may not realize it, but you are. Not that that's wrong; it sure isn't. .



We are not Spock. The idea that emotion is somehow an inferior way of analyzing ethical issues compared to the intellect led to the greatest atrocities of the 20th Century. In his book, "Blink" Malcolm Gladwell demonstrates how flawed the intellect only approach is.

And the basis of the U.S. legal system is ethics. Sometimes it gets it right and sometimes wrong. On this issue, they got it right.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 13, 2012)

Riff, I'm not typing using my emotions. Really. And I'm not trying to quote you out of context and make you look like an idiot.

It comes down to how you're viewing child pornography. If you click on a link by accident, obviously that can't be illegal. And if you're doing research for a book on how to eliminate child pornography, obviously that can't be illegal.

But downloading it and wanking probably should be illegal. At least I think it should, for the reasons I wrote earlier.

Also, when I said red light porno should be legal, I didn't say anything about drunken felony red light running with injury that's staged for sick people porno.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 13, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun May 13 said:


> Riff, I'm not typing using my emotions. Really. And I'm not trying to quote you out of context and make you look like an idiot.
> 
> It comes down to how you're viewing child pornography. If you click on a link by accident, obviously that can't be illegal. And if you're doing research for a book on how to eliminate child pornography, obviously that can't be illegal.
> 
> But downloading it and wanking probably should be illegal. At least I think it should, for the reasons I wrote earlier.



How is anyone going to be able to tell someone who accidentally clicked on child porn or someone doing research apart from someone who jerked off to it?


----------



## nikolas (May 13, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Mon May 14 said:


> How is anyone going to be able to tell someone who accidentally clicked on child porn or someone doing research apart from someone who jerked off to it?


Probably the same way one can say if a killing was a murder, an accident, or suicide...

Or perhaps (just saying here), if there's a book about child pornography authored by the guy who is accused of watching child porn, and that guy had informed the police and the university... Or maybe because in the whole 2 months of history from the IP the guy accused of that came to a link once...

Come on...


----------



## choc0thrax (May 13, 2012)

nikolas @ Sun May 13 said:


> choc0thrax @ Mon May 14 said:
> 
> 
> > How is anyone going to be able to tell someone who accidentally clicked on child porn or someone doing research apart from someone who jerked off to it?
> ...



I guess analyze the spray patterns. Determine if they're consistent with jerkin' it to child porn. Agreed, sounds pretty easy.


----------



## nikolas (May 13, 2012)

trolololololololololo...

Choco, try reading the whole post next time. You mentioned accidently clicked on child porn (thus doing it once or twice in months), doing research (thus publishing a book, and obviously notifying the authorities about this) and jerked off to it (thus guilty).


----------



## choc0thrax (May 13, 2012)

nikolas @ Sun May 13 said:


> trolololololololololo...
> 
> Choco, try reading the whole post next time. You mentioned accidently clicked on child porn (thus doing it once or twice in months), doing research (thus publishing a book, and obviously notifying the authorities about this) and jerked off to it (thus guilty).



Yes, I did mention those things. Good job. Gold sticker coming your way.

I'd love to continue but I think I may be nearing my monthly post limit about the lovely topic of child porn and jerkin' it. o-[][]-o


----------



## nikolas (May 13, 2012)

lol... fair enough. I think that I also wasted a good amount of posts here...


----------



## NYC Composer (May 14, 2012)

Niah @ Sat May 12 said:


> Another thing I what to mention:
> 
> I see an increase of parents exposing their children more and more by placing photos of them, videos, etc, on the internet available to everyone.
> 
> I'm really not sure if some understand that a pedophile can "get off" by viewing this type of material even if it's not sexual in nature.



+1. I always thought people were crazy posting pics of their young kids on the 'net. I very deliberately kept my kids pics offline.


----------



## Mike Marino (May 15, 2012)

Now there's backlash from the N.Y. ruling. Imagine that!



> http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/13/backlash-grows-at-ruling-on-viewing-of-child-porn/


----------

