Founder of the Swedish Pirate Party comes out in support of re-legalisation of child pornography
105 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cushie]It works a bit differently when it becomes evidence, just like illegal drugs. Like in the scenario above if you found a USB stick full of child porn, there is no guarantee you can prove it isn't yours, though I'm very doubtful they would actually charge someone for bringing it in if there was no evidence that it belonged to that person.
I know its a slightly different story, but someone that used to go to my school accidentally left his USB stick at work, a coworker checked it to see to whom it belonged, and discovered that it had loads of child porn on it. He reported it to the police, and after some investigation the guy who left it at work ended up going to jail.[/QUOTE]
Yes I actually acknowledged that.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx]I'm sure you could take it and report it to the police without getting hit by the law yourself. But you could be punished for possessing it. Thus, I imagine that it can lead to some situations like that.[/QUOTE]
The point is that you can't do it and feel as safe about it as you could with for example a snuff video. I know that the law would [I]probably[/I] not be used against you even though it could [I](Isn't that a problem too? Isn't it a problem in itself when you know full well that the law is written in a way that you have to sometimes ignore it?)[/I]. But the problem is that it [I]could[/I] be used against you, and I think that might scare some people away from reporting it when they see it. This probably goes for the internet as well. People might be scared to report something they see on the internet because they're afraid of being charged themselves. It shouldn't be like that because all of it is merely evidence.
[B]EDIT:[/B] Just look at something like animal abuse videos. They're legal to possess, and that means people actually see it. Look at how the Internet has occasionally actually solved some of those cases by collaborating and looking at the details. This sure as hell doesn't happen with child porn because nobody can look at it.
[QUOTE=Cushie;37648166]I'm not sure, that's just how I'd see it.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't think it's like that. It just doesn't make sense. They're obviously not looking for a way to get a high download count because they could pretty much do [I]anything else[/I] and get more encouragement on YouTube. People who molest children and film it probably don't do it to feed a demand. They get nothing out of it [I](unless there is payment involved, in which case I would agree.)[/I], not to mention that it gets spread around in such a way that the creator doesn't even know who views it.
[QUOTE]Also isn't the quote you put a bit misleading? A lot of things are exactly the same by the word of the law, but the outcome of a case is entirely dependent on the situation. Plus there is quite a difference between forced rape and what is obviously consensual sex, which few people would decide to ruin someone's life over.[/QUOTE]
It shouldn't be a problem because there are indeed some "obvious" things that can make the law not apply. But it [I]does[/I] still apply and people [I]do[/I] sometimes get charged for it because they've technically broken the law. Minors for taking pictures of themselves, parents for taking innocent but nude pictures of their children, etc.
I don't know what to think about this, other than that stuff like loli and shota should be legalised to act as a sort of pacification, almost like preventative medication. No-one gets hurt in the production of such stuff (unless there's a real reference involved or some Conservative troglodyte gets its jimmies rustled), and it likely prevents potential molesters from hunting kids.
Apart from that, and my earlier suggestion of a "Mind & Body" system of measuring maturity rather than abstract inaccurate chronological measurements, I don't know what else to say on this matter.
Let's say I have a picture of myself, naked, when I was a kid. What would happen if I uploaded that?
A lot of ambiguous things comes into play if I did that. First of all, you'd get the clusterfuck situation where the nebulous, idiotic question snakes its way in; [I]"Is that child porn?"[/I] That's when we start getting confused about what child porn even is. Nudity doesn't make it porn does it? The context sure as hell isn't sexual. But dude! You can see a tiny penis! It's like, almost in the center of the image! Obviously that makes it pornographic?
It's a fairly confusing situation that doesn't really need to be there. It should be easy to determine whether actual abuse is going on, and if there is, then it could be used as evidence. But the laws as they are right now can pull people into this clusterfuck. And that's where they bring out the projectors and show the pictures in court.
And that's ignoring the fact that it's myself in the picture. What if it was obviously pornographic but I wanted to upload it anyways?
[QUOTE=Cushie]It works a bit differently when it becomes evidence, just like illegal drugs.[/QUOTE]
Right, that's true. But I think I might be the kind of person who would argue that possessing drugs should be legal too?
Anyways, the point is that it [I]should[/I] obviously not be shown in court. When you ask [I]"wait a second, why is distributing and possessing child porn illegal?"[/I], you might have a bunch of answers, but if you think it's harmful to view, possess and show child porn, then surely it is just as harmful when it is done in court? But it's totes fine because they have to (for justice!)?
I do agree with him in that information shouldn't be illegal to possess. But just because possessing and viewing child porn is legal, doesn't mean they have to stop investigating in the big distribution networks to find and put the people that are actually doing the raping and abuse in jail.
And that's exactly what he means in the article aswell. To shift the focus away from the people meerly possessing it and put it on those who are doing the abuse instead.
Those who possess child pornography create [B]demand[/B] for it
Guess how CP is made.
See the problem?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37648464]Those who possess child pornography create [B]demand[/B] for it
Guess how CP is made.
See the problem?[/QUOTE]
Crack down on the child abusers and offer help (psychological) for those possessing it.
You remove the demand and put more focus on those causing the damage.
I think child porn should stay banned because I think pedophiles will just want more and more and maybe resulting in child molestation. Not saying all pedophiles will, but if it can prevent child molestation it will be worth it
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37648464]Those who possess child pornography create [B]demand[/B] for it
Guess how CP is made.
See the problem?[/QUOTE]
Do they though? if no money changes hands and and how is there a demand? and it's not if someone who was going to molest child would stop if his videos were were somehow perceived as unpopular, he might stop recording it but that wouldn't stop the molestation. Also a lot of what is considered child pornography is produced by children and adolescents(sexting, omgele, chatroulete etc.) does this count as child abuse?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37648464]Those who possess child pornography create [B]demand[/B] for it
Guess how CP is made.
See the problem?[/QUOTE]
Do you think if nobody possessed CP there'd be no demand and no children would he hurt?
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37648495]I think child porn should stay banned because I think pedophiles will just want more and more and maybe resulting in child molestation. Not saying all pedophiles will, but if it can prevent child molestation it will be worth it[/QUOTE]
Other than your best guess do we have any reason to think this? what if the availability of child porn reduces the need for paedophiles to molest children? Do you think you would be more or less likely to seek out sex if there was no porn available to you?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37648464]Those who possess child pornography create [B]demand[/B] for it
Guess how CP is made.
See the problem?[/QUOTE]
CP creators don't make it to feed a demand. They get nothing out of it other than fulfilling their own desires. I think those who create it would be molesting children regardless of the 'demand'.
In that sense, it seems that it is actually better for it to be recorded rather than it happening behind closed doors somewhere, never to be found out.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37648495]I think child porn should stay banned because I think pedophiles will just want more and more and maybe resulting in child molestation. Not saying all pedophiles will, but if it can prevent child molestation it will be worth it[/QUOTE]
Actually there has been a study showing that pornography of any kind being legalized actually helps reduce all forms of sex crime. It actually seems more likely that legalizing child porn would reduce child porn. And it makes sense doesn't it? They get to vent their feelings, and it's obviously an easier solution to just download some cp rather than actually going out to molest a real child.
Child porn doesn't make pedophiles lose their empathy and conscience. And also GTA doesn't make teenagers into violent school shooters btw.
[QUOTE=Jookia;37648510]Do you think if nobody possessed CP there'd be no demand and no children would he hurt?[/QUOTE]
no, but there would be certainly much less demand for CP
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37648533]no, but there would be certainly much less demand for CP[/QUOTE]
Is there a correlation between demand and children hurt?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37648533]no, but there would be certainly much less demand for CP[/QUOTE]
Why do you think no one having something that they desire would decrease demand? If all the porn on the internet disappeared do you think demand would go up or down?
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37648495]I think child porn should stay banned because I think pedophiles will just want more and more and maybe resulting in child molestation. Not saying all pedophiles will, but if it can prevent child molestation it will be worth it[/QUOTE]
What about other porn then, or murder films?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37648533]no, but there would be certainly much less demand for CP[/QUOTE]
Let's say for a second that 'demand' actually does affect someone in their decision making.
Do you think the demand can make someone molest children? Or was the person already molesting children, but the demand made the person start documenting it and putting it on the internet?
The first one seems literally insane. If a person does something just because a tiny niche of people wants to see it, then why did he choose that specific one? Why didn't he make snuff videos?
If it's the second, then what does it matter? The difference is that he creates evidence against himself, rather than nobody knowing about it.
And then we arrest him for committing that crime, rather than putting so much effort into going after something that may or may not have influenced the person. If we want to get rid of things that might tempt crazy people to do crazy shit, then there's quite a lot of stuff we need to get rid of.
One crazy person might get tempted to do crazy shit because there's some kind of demand, another might be tempted because someone told him about a conspiracy theory, another crazy person might do crazy shit because of their religion, and some other crazy person might do crazy shit because they saw some crazy shit on Grand Theft Auto.
Child pornography always has a victim.
[QUOTE=Falchion;37648630]Child pornography always has a victim.[/QUOTE]
So does 3 guys 1 hammer, which is brought up in the article.
Not to mention [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc]Phan Thi Kim Phuc[/URL]. Why the hell is that picture legal, it clearly has a victim and there is clearly some harm going on there. [I]And[/I] she's naked.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;37648639]Not to mention [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc]Phan Thi Kim Phuc[/URL]. Why the hell is that picture legal, it clearly has a victim and there is clearly some harm going on there. [I]And[/I] she's naked.[/QUOTE]
you can't be serious
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;37648639]So does 3 guys 1 hammer, which is brought up in the article.
Not to mention [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc"]Phan Thi Kim Phuc[/URL]. Why the hell is that picture legal, it clearly has a victim and there is clearly some harm going on there. [I]And[/I] she's naked.[/QUOTE]
So lets just make CP legal because that fixes all those problems
After reading a bit and some thinking I'm convinced that cp laws do need some restructing but I think for the most part they need to stay in place.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;37648654]you can't be serious[/QUOTE]
I realize it's different. The difference is that in child porn, the perpetrator of the harm is also the one recording the act. But in the Phan Thi Kim Phuc photo, the person taking the picture isn't doing the harm.
But what about 3 guys 1 hammer then? It's just like what the article says;
[QUOTE]The question also begs asking – why is it only documentation of sex crimes against minors that are being banned in this way? The lawmen are perfectly fine with a video documenting how a teenager is being stabbed with a screwdriver in both eyes, then murdered (warning: the link is very real, but contains a transcript before you get to the actual video, which you probably don’t want to watch). It’s not the documentation of victimization that we prohibit, nor is it molestation as such – why is the ban just related to anything sexual, and not to the bodily harm itself, which is what it sounds like from the proponents of the ban?[/QUOTE]
And there's the fact that child porn is pretty undefined. A nude photo can be considered child porn. When there's no perpetrator, it can still be child porn.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37648010]no law isn't automatic.
if you capture a rape in progress and use it to capture the criminal no reasonable DA is going to charge you.[/QUOTE]
I remember a thread a few months ago, some father was downloading music or someshit, accidentally downloaded some CP, immediately called the police on it to inform them of the link etc, got arrested for having cp and lost his kids.
[QUOTE=Saxon;37648681]So lets just make CP legal because that fixes all those problems[/QUOTE]
What. Of course legalizing it doesn't solve all those problems, but [I]illegalizing[/I] imagery of harm also doesn't fix anything.
And if you read the article then there's some arguments about why the illegalization is actually detrimental.
Did you even read the thread or the article? There's a bunch of problems that illegalizing it actually causes. Minors who get charged for taking pictures of themselves and being branded as sex offenders? That problem actually would be solved.
[QUOTE=Falchion;37648630]Child pornography always has a victim.[/QUOTE]
So if a 17 year old photographs his genitals and upon request sends it to his 17 year old girlfriend, who is the victim?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;37648683]I realize it's different. The difference is that in child porn, the perpetrator of the harm is also the one recording the act. But in the Phan Thi Kim Phuc photo, the person taking the picture isn't doing the harm.[/QUOTE]
No.
In Child Porn, the harm being done and recorded is for sexual reasons.
In the above picture it is harm done by war, not for sexual reasons.
A clear difference.
[QUOTE=Falchion;37648630]Child pornography always has a victim.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that's exactly what he wants to shift the focus on. To help and prevent children from getting abused and to jail the people who are abusing them. Instead of wasting money and effort into for example criminalizing and punishing teenagers who with their own free will took pictures of themselves either alone or while having consensual sex with someone. In this case it not only are the resources used wrongly, it creates victims instead of preventing them.
It's partly this he wants to get rid of.
And in the example of accidentally recording a child getting abused, it CAN be used to criminalize you with and even if any court with common sense will free you from the charges you still have to go through the process of being accused of possessing child pornography and put up in front of a court. Even if you're freed, there are always ignorant people who can cause you problems such as a boss can fire you or you can loose friends and your wife for being accused of having child pornography.
Another thing is if for example someone posts a child pornography picture here on facepunch, when you load the page your browser will automatically download it and put it into it's cache (unless you have that turned off, but I don't think many of you do). Bam, you're technically a criminal now because your computer contains child pornography. The laws does not take it into consideration.
No, currently, CP doesnt always have a victim. If i sendt you all images of my dick, you would be in possesion of CP, but I am not a victim.
[QUOTE=Daniellynet;37648724]No.
In Child Porn, the harm being done and recorded is for sexual reasons.
In the above picture it is harm done by war, not for sexual reasons.
A clear difference.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]why is it only documentation of sex crimes against minors that are being banned in this way? The lawmen are perfectly fine with a video documenting how a teenager is being stabbed with a screwdriver in both eyes, then murdered. It’s not the documentation of victimization that we prohibit, nor is it molestation as such – why is the ban just related to anything sexual, and not to the bodily harm itself, which is what it sounds like from the proponents of the ban?[/QUOTE]
And also you're ignoring the fact that child porn is many things. It can also be, as others have mentioned, sexting between minors or just pictures of nude kids. When child porn is illegal, it's sometimes hard to determine whether something is cp or not. Parents have gotten in trouble for taking innocent pictures of their own kids while they were naked. Obviously there were no sexual reasons, no sexual context, no harm, no anything - yet it could still be child porn. So then why isn't the famous picture from the Vietnam war?
I find it hard to believe that the police would bother prosecuting people who don't have a substantial amount of child pornography stored.
[editline]13th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=fantafuzz;37648764]No, currently, CP doesnt always have a victim. If i sendt you all images of my dick, you would be in possesion of CP, but I am not a victim.[/QUOTE]
Everyone you send it to would be the viticm :V
Even though I completely agree with this guy, expressing these views is extremely toxic to the legitimacy of the Pirate Party. Now they'll be labeled as "those people who support kiddie porn."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.