my gut reaction is that the viewing of kiddie porn would lead someone with unhealthy desires to see their attraction as legitimized and would subsequently act on those desires, i.e. abuse a child
additionally, it feels like consumption drives production
one of my friend's roommate argued that production operates independent of consumption rates and that a potential molester's intent to act is sublimated by viewing porn, thereby preventing any actual physical assault from occurring.
the same guy felt child porn that is drawn or computer generated shouldn't be illegal.
fuck that guy and fuck john grisham's pervert friends
Guess the consumption drives production argument would depend on distribution method.
Like movie torrents are generally not made for revenue, since there's no ad revenue or otherwise from uploading a torrent (and criminal charges if you try directly monetizing it since money is so much easier to track than anonymized VPN upload). There is money in distribution of it via link sites and streaming services...but those are a different entity.
So in theory consumption drives distribution more than actual creation.
il fiore bel
What grosses me out is him failing to acknowledge the suffering and trauma already experienced by the kids, just so that these assholes can get their fix. It doesn't matter if the website says they're 10 or 16. Whether or not they will go on to sexually abuse children, these "white men" are intentionally trying to get off on underaged porn, which tells me they condone and support it. And drunkenness is not an excuse.
Claiming that legitimization leads to action is immaterial. Even if it were true, and to the best of my knowledge there has been no evidence that this is actually the case, the law cannot (or perhaps, should not) be structured in such a way so as to punish *potential* crimes! Punitive measures are to be used against someone who _has_ committed a crime, not someone who _might_ commit a crime, particularly if the evidence for said criminal conspiracy is completely conjectural. Unless, of course, we're living in a Phillip K Dick novel!
As for your friend's idea that ready access to CP reduces the likelihood of abuse (by "sublimating desire" or however else he wants to put it), that is also a controversial statement, and as before, whether it's true or not is ultimately immaterial. It does, however, have a growing body of evidence behind it, unlike the proposition that CP leads to abuse.
"Consumption drives production" is not the same as "production drives consumption" i.e. you're tacitly admitting that certain people WANT to consume CP, regardless of it's accessibility, and they don't need to think of CP as being "normalized" in order to act like creepers. A more important factor to consider is that consumption and production will always exist, regardless of legalistic blocks - here, we dive into the classic problem of prohibition. I don't think I need to elaborate on why prohibition fails; we as a community all seem to know it is true. There are no Nancy Reagans here!
Now that is not to say that I'd argue that hardcore CP should be decriminalized, far from it, particularly not it's production! But I put it to you: where is the harm in lolicon? Where is the harm in NN cheesecake threads on Reddit? Where is the harm in letting John Holmes Motherfucker spend his evenings curled up on the couch with his cats, watching his favorite Boxxy videos, lost in her pretty young smile?! Nevermind the Constitutional arguments (the Constitution DOES protect the individual's right to lolicon, regardless of what some redneck judges might say), just think of how much better off we'd be if everyone who wanted to videotape themselves diddling their stepkids went out and drew some pictures instead. †
Finally, it bears pointing out that Mr Grisham's "friend" (EH note- is that code for Mr Grisham himself?) was busted in Canada, a nation which has notoriously backwards thought policing laws, many of which would not pass muster even in Texas. Furthermore, if Mr Grisham's account is true, he was caught perving on sixteen year-olds. It is not clear how explicit the material he accessed was (although admittedly, it sounds fairly explicit based on Mr Grisham's statements; if it was hardcore material, then I'd be more than willing to support his sentence, the rest of my points notwithstanding), but let us not obfuscate the issues: I'm sure we can all agree that there is a world of difference between sixteen year-olds (who are in their biologically-defined prime, and legally above the age of consent throughout all but the most recent years of human history, and in most nations on earth even today, just not Canada nor the United States) and, quote, "ten year-old boys", a somewhat homophobic statement but nevertheless quite true. One cannot trivialize abuse by pointing out the truth.
*Child abuse* is a big deal. That is why we had these laws in the first place, to seek restitution for abused children. Porn itself is only a big deal in so far as it relates directly to abuse; the further we slip away from that understanding, the more we widen our nets looking for ever-more-cunningly concealed witches, the worse things will get for everyone involved, and the harder it will be to accept social change when it comes.
But yeah, I do agree with one thing il fiore bel said: drunkenness is not an excuse. I think most of us here have gotten drunk plenty of times without looking up CP.
† I'm serious about that, BTW. A friend of mine died of AIDS some years back, contracted from his stepdad, who'd raped him repeatedly when he was twelve. While I'd love for that particular shitheel child molester to get lynched, it'd also be nice if future child molesters had better outlets for their sick-fuckery than actual kids.
Yeah. The head of my college's comp lit department was busted in a sting involving an AIM conversation involving a 13 year old boy when the mom found out, tipped the FBI and an agent took over for the boy until a meeting place was established. Because of this, our little department, which was underfunded, seemed to be the main concern. For me, it had nothing to do with that. Rather, he said (and I'm not quoting) "I did not plan on having sex with him, I just wanted to watch him masturbate." I had about 3 credits left to complete it as my double-major and I was just like "fuck you guys" and left the department. One team is arguing for or against his termination from the payroll post-incarceration, another is arguing that his actions reflect poorly against an already-suffering department; at no point did anyone consider the impact those words must have left on the victim himself.
You realize what legal can of worms get opened by criminalizing illustrations, don't you?
Think Japan recently opened that can, though I'm not familiar enough with the law or results of it to make any comments on it.
|Rodents of Unusual Size |
I'm sure that is going to comfort the child sex slaves forced to make these films in Indonesia.
Not that I equate watching child pornography to the actual act. I don't. I still think it should be illegal. But yeesh, dude.
Looks like Big Ped got to him: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29654291
|Adham Nu'man |
"Now imagine she's white."
|infinite zest |
Thing is, the "pushing the wrong buttons" thing I understand, in a way. I remember that from the old usenet days when trolls would purposefully insert child porn into some altbinary for adult pornstars, say Jenna Jameson, at the time, all labeled as .jpgs about said pornstar(s.) It's not innocent, but it's understandable, like accidentally walking into the wrong locker room, about facing it and hightailing it outta there like most people on the usenets. Those who would download them, well, that's the same as snapping a few pictures while you're in the wrong locker room.
Isn't early Jameson porn child porn by definition, since she was under age? Or do I have the wrong one?
But that also brings up how even in the US there are different ages of consent between states...so in one state it could be legal and in another it's child porn, and with mandatory sentencing it wouldn't make a difference.
I think you're thinking of Traci Lords. It's true, my argument was with the usenets you just got text, no thumbnails or anything, kind of like the first time someone sent you a goatse.cx link. "eww" and move along.
As far as the other thing goes, it's true. Age of "consent" (i.e. physical consent) is 16 in a majority of the US states. My buddy used to work at a 24 hour adult video store in college and I'd go there after work at 2:30AM or so and write my papers there because the libraries were closed, and when someone asked for something "younger" than 18 it was a quick Polaroid and lifetime ban, as it was very well a sting in and of itself. I can't remember all the details, but regardless of consent in other states, you can't use that as leverage, so 18 is the legal standard, both on the internet and on tape (that's why all the Barely Legal tapes say 18 on them now, because there was some controversy about this some time ago.) Kind of like how in Wisconsin it's perfectly legal to buy your son or daughter a beer on his or her 12th (or even 10th) birthday as long as you give consent, but since it isn't in other states you have to be "21" to enter the beer company's website, and why most bars in Oregon have a strict "No Minors After ___" or "at any time" rule.
Jenna Jameson's first scene was at age 18 with Randy West. She didn't start doing magazines and shoots until she was of legal age, although she convinced a strip club owner to let her dance when she was still 17.
The Traci Lords case went all the way to SCOTUS, US v. X-Citement Video. The corporation got off (eye roll) on the grounds that the state didn't prove they knew Lords was underage. But yeah, her earliest stuff is illegal
I will say that it is kind of shitty for a sting to be that deceptive, especially when it involves years of incarceration and not a slap on the wrist. When I bartended they got pretty sneaky: name, picture, date, they all match up but LOOK: the license is expired. Successful trickery like that would usually get taken out of your tips for the next week or so. A lot of middle aged men have that American Beauty syndrome, especially when their kids reach high school, where they remember being 15 and having a crush on the head cheerleader or something. And assuming he lived in the majority of states that's 16+, it's more knowing the law, which is something most people don't think about when they want to fap off. Drunkenness is not an excuse ("I'm drunk so I'm gonna piss in the alleyway"
(Oh yeah I forgot, backwards arrows cut off comments as it thinks it's embed code.. anyway here's the rest..)
caught and you're a sex offender too) but in a way it's kind of like going to a bar in a state that's banned smoking and lighting up a cigarette. "It's legal where I come from" is no excuse, but bartender has two options: either be nice about it and tell you to take it outside, or be a dick about it and 86 you. It'd be entrapment for the Porn sting to go the opposite way, like clicking on and giving your info to some MILF/Mature website that yields nothing but child porn. I don't know, Grisham still needs to shut the fuck up but a more effective sting would be one that separated the true online perverts from those who didn't know any better, and are just kind of in a midlife crisis.
|Maggot Brain |
Just so we're all clear; child pornography is for white people as crack cocaine is for black people.
So a website labeled "naked wannabe hooker 16 year olds" was just sitting on the surface web for any drunk pervert to stumble into? That's not an FBI honeypot, that's a trap to extract the stupid from the gene pool.
il fiore bel
Technically, 16-year-old isn't considered "pedo" (ephebophilia), and while a person who looks at a video of a teen getting diddled shouldn't receive the exact same punishment as a kiddie diddler, the gray area with 16-year-olds is just a little too close to nope.
For starters, how do you know it's a 16-year-old girl, and not some 13-year-old who was coerced into making the video? Mr. Grisham's description of the website was that it included "16-year-old" in the name and that they were dressed up like 30-year-olds. He said nothing about them actually being 16. It's bad enough what can pass for an adult. I'd hate to think what can pass for sixteen when *that* is what some guy is seeking. To me, that person has way less room to argue than some dude who accidentally stumbled across fifteen-year-old hooch while viewing an adult porn site.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
What I heard was a plea against draconian punishments and lifetime stigmatization for certain low-level crimes, not a justification for child pornography. Maybe I missed something. I'm not going to watch it again, and I'm not going to get dragged into a radioactive discussion. But I think it's reasonable and courageous to talk about these things. As a public figurine, I'm sure he's going to pay a price.
Draconian punishments for sex offenses create an incentive for abusers to silence their victims, occasionally with murder, more often with coercion and intimidation. Most people who support getting "tough on crime" don't seem to think it through that far.
Meanwhile, the same witch hunt mentality that makes it impossible to talk about these things without taking on suspicion makes it impossible for deviates to seek help. I know of one case locally. This guy really tried to seek help, and no one would touch touch. Yeah I think he's back in prison now.
Researching rehabilitation for sex offenders can bring serious problems for an institution. How is that good for children?
There's two objections I have to Grishams approach here
(1) I'm convinced that any case for reduced incarceration has to come from a non retributive model of penology, and hence "what he did wasn't so bad" is almost never going to be an effective argument. People, particularly Americans, love being aggrieved, particularly on behalf of other people (so you don't even have to suffer yourself!), and there's no objective limit on how much suffering you can say any crime is repaid by. You can draw comparisons to punishment for other crimes, but nothing stops the penalties for crime in general from going up and up and up, because there's always emotional and electoral payoff in making sure the public gets more and more of its deserts. If you want to argue against the increasingly insane sex crime pseudo-punishments in america--lifetime reslgistration, lifetime parole, potentially lifelong SVP committment--the focus has to be on the utter breakdown of society andlegal norms--tent cities of registrants under bridges with nowhere to go, the effective ccriminalisation of homelessness for people who can no longer get jobs, a cottage industry of psychiatrists whose job is to make up new medical diagnoses as a basis for civil commitment
In other words, rhetorically, "its not all that bad" is a disaster area
(2) in sex crime penology, the cutting edge is really the insane extended parole restrictions, registration, and SVP committment
13.5, Re: (2), did you ever see Louis Theroux's "A Place For Pedophiles"? Theroux is hardly sympathetic and I don't think his purpose was to press for reform, but it's impossible to watch that documentary and come away without disgust for civil commitment. If you want to send a man to prison for life, then send a man to prison for life. Give him due process. Don't use extra-legal measures to dodge the law and keep him detained forever!
Also, you raise some very good points in (1). Sort of like political aikido, then? You use the American public's capacity for indignation and turn it against them, by calmly redirecting it's flow towards a new target?
Have not seen that. I had a friend who represented a guy was was committed based on a diagnosis of paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified)/ paraphilia rape. It was a gross situation because neither was a recognized condition in DSMIV and the state in question just basically had this one phd on call ready to say "I've discovered a new mental disorder that consists of having a tendency to do sex crimes.". Which is a legit problem! But one that's traditionally dealt with in the criminal justicessystem, given that civil comittment for APD isn't really an option. Appellate court issued a 90 page op upholding the commitment and trying to shy away as much as possible from the legal disaster area of an appellate court calling bullshit on science on legal grounds.
Re (1), I guess you could call it that. Its kind of finding a way to redefine the debate, one way or another. If the question is "do you want a pedophile walking the streets," with all questions of means and consequences in the background, the rhetorical edge is always going to be for more and more incarceration. Newt Gingrich, of all people, called for a rollback of mass incarceration at one point in the 2012 GOP primary, focusing on cost.
The Theroux documentary in question:
It's about the Coalinga State Hospital, which as you may be aware is on the cutting edge of the "civil commitment" movement. Again, Theroux is fairly hostile throughout (at one point he even gets an inmate in trouble for having an otherwise innocuous picture of a twinkish young man on the wall, despite the staff's obvious desire to let it slide), and the BBCs narrative is, as always, very pro-punishment, but the documentary gives you a good look at what goes on there, and it's not hard to see the troubling subtext.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|