I don't even know where to begin with this one


  • sockdevs



  • Earlier this week, Tucson news station KVOA got wind of the PSA and interviewed Lotsof about it. The station owner said he feels the sentences for possession of child pornography are draconian. Arizona allows for sentences of 10-24 years per violation of child-porn laws.

    "There's no picture in the world that's that dangerous,” Lotsof told a KVOA reporter.

    That quote right there really, really pisses me off.

    "The difference is [in] one case, you're molesting children and abusing them, causing children to do things that are not natural for children to do, and [in] the other case, they're just possessing pictures," he said in the KVOA interview. "There's no connection between those two."

    And now I'm in blind rage.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    "The difference is [in] one case, you're molesting children and abusing them, causing children to do things that are not natural for children to do, and [in] the other case, they're just possessing pictures," he said in the KVOA interview. "There's no connection between those two."

    And now I'm in blind rage.

    I am always confused by these statements. How do these people think those pictures are created? 100% Photoshop?

    Filed Under: I agree that murder should be punished at least as hard has owning child pornography... but I don't think the child pornography punishment should be lessened



  • @Kuro said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    "The difference is [in] one case, you're molesting children and abusing them, causing children to do things that are not natural for children to do, and [in] the other case, they're just possessing pictures," he said in the KVOA interview. "There's no connection between those two."

    And now I'm in blind rage.

    I am always confused by these statements. How do these people think those pictures are created? 100% Photoshop?

    To be fair, I've heard of people getting caught with "virtual child porn" where it's merely rendered models of children in poses, and they were dealt similar sentences. I don't have a strong opinion either way as to whether considering that a crime is "good" or not, icky brain bleach mental images aside. However, I have also heard of people getting in trouble for possessing rendered images of people who might be children, depending on what they look like, but could also be young-looking adults. That's something I'm a little concerned about. We should be protecting children from this kind of abuse, but we also shouldn't ruin people's lives because they had a rendered 18 year old who could pass as 16.

    But, that's not what the radio station owner's talking about, so that's neither here nor there.


  • sockdevs

    @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    However, I have also heard of people getting in trouble for possessing rendered images of people who might be children, depending on what they look like, but could also be young-looking adults.

    IIRC, some countries actually have legislation specifically against 'loli' images



  • @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    To be fair, I've heard of people getting caught with "virtual child porn" where it's merely rendered models of children in poses, and they were dealt similar sentences.

    Yes, it kinda makes you think the legislators care more about punishing the sexual deviants than the child molestation.

    And then there's the laws that impose ridiculous minimum sentences, meaning if a 16 year old sends you a naked selfie you should theoretically go to jail for 5 years... I'd say those are a bit excessive too.


  • sockdevs

    @anonymous234 said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    if a 16 year old sends you a naked selfie you should theoretically go to jail for 5 years

    In the UK, that would... um... I have no idea how UK law would treat that.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @anonymous234 said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    laws that impose ridiculous minimum sentences

    The principal problem there is that you need an overall scale of seriousness that takes into account all sorts of crimes, all the way from jaywalking on a cycle path while wearing baggy trousers to high treason and genocide, and most laws mandating a specific sentence forget about all the other crimes that should be more (or less) serious than the one they're talking about.



  • @anonymous234 said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    To be fair, I've heard of people getting caught with "virtual child porn" where it's merely rendered models of children in poses, and they were dealt similar sentences.

    And then there's the laws that impose ridiculous minimum sentences, meaning if a 16 year old sends you a naked selfie you should theoretically go to jail for 5 years... I'd say those are a bit excessive too.

    I'm not too familiar with the specifics of those cases, but if a 16 year old sends you a naked selfie, and you keep it, then you're in the wrong.

    However, I've heard of cases where the 16 year old gets charged with child porn, which is ridiculous in its own right. Plus, I'm sure there have been cases where the recipient gets in trouble simply for reporting it to her parents or guardian, which only encourages one to hide these kinds of incidents.


  • BINNED

    @anonymous234 said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    it kinda makes you think the legislators care more about punishing the sexual deviants than the child molestation.

    I don't know where I stand on whether entirely simulated child molestation representations should be legal.

    On the one hand, it doesn't derive from the actual abuse of a minor, which is a good thing. On the other hand it does come from the mind of someone who presumably likes the idea of it.

    I think in the end it would have to come down to what the evidence says. I remember seeing some research suggesting people who watch violent porn are sated by watching it and so less likely to commit the kind of acts depicted, but it also seems plausible that over a longer period it might normalise the acts for people who watch them, leading them to seek out more extreme porn or act it out themselves. If that's true then simulated child porn (and violent porn, although there's a blurry line there) should be criminalised. If it is shown to reduce abusive action then, despite hating the idea of it, I would be in support of it being legal



  • From the comments:

    Wait, people still listen to over-the-air radio?

    Apparently not. It took 2 years for someone notice this message and do something about it.



  • @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    That quote right there really, really pisses me off.

    It shouldn't. The man believes the penalties are too harsh, and so he's exercising his right to free speech to advise others on how to avoid being caught. Hell, it's an inch away from patriotic, if you're an American.



  • @blakeyrat At the very least, having photographic evidence of a felony occurring and not calling law enforcement makes you an accessory after the fact. And that makes you liable for the same crime. Really.



  • @Captain said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    At the very least, having photographic evidence of a felony occurring and not calling law enforcement makes you an accessory after the fact. Really.

    Ok... how is that relevant at all to what I said?



  • @blakeyrat It's relevant because both you and the DJ are ignoring that fact. It's not exactly a new legal principle.



  • @Captain How am I ignoring it?

    Look, if you have some point to make, please just make it and stop wasting both our time. I'm sick of trying to squeeze it out of you by having to ask all these piecemeal questions.



  • @blakeyrat said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @Captain How am I ignoring it?

    Look, if you have some point to make, please just make it and stop wasting both our time. I'm sick of trying to squeeze it out of you by having to ask all these piecemeal questions.

    I think it goes like this: The pornographer takes the picture of whatever it is, and someone else acquires a copy of that picture. Leaving aside the question of whether loading the .JPG into Photoshop or his browser or whatever makes the viewer a pornographer, the viewer does have direct evidence of a crime (the creation of the pornographic image of a minor). If he doesn't report this to the police, he is, by the conventional definition of "accessory after the fact", an accessory after the fact to the crime of making that picture.



  • @Steve_The_Cynic Ok? I still don't see what that has to do with my post even slightly. Is this the point where everybody starts calling me stupid? Go ahead.



  • @blakeyrat said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    That quote right there really, really pisses me off.

    It shouldn't. The man believes the penalties are too harsh, and so he's exercising his right to free speech to advise others on how to avoid being caught. Hell, it's an inch away from patriotic, if you're an American.

    Just because someone has the freedom of speech and has an opinion doesn't mean I can't be pissed off at said speech and opinion. As someone who gets pissed off at just about anything anyone says, I'd think you'd be familiar with that concept.



  • @blakeyrat said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @Steve_The_Cynic Ok? I still don't see what that has to do with my post even slightly. Is this the point where everybody starts calling me stupid? Go ahead.

    The DJ is telling people how to commit the crime of being an accessory after the fact to another crime. (His advice is addressed to people who have acquired such images, and therefore are accessories after the fact to the crime of creating those images.)



  • @Steve_The_Cynic said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    The DJ is telling people how to commit the crime of being an accessory after the fact to another crime. (His advice is addressed to people who have acquired such images, and therefore are accessories after the fact to the crime of creating those images.)

    Ok...?

    Could we finally loop this around now? What the fuck does that have to do with what I posted?

    Or maybe I'll just hit "ignore this thread" because what the hell is wrong with you people.



  • @Steve_The_Cynic

    In the same vain

    We had a lawyer at uni and he basically had a lecture at the start of course that was "ask me all the stupid questions now to get it out of your system".

    Someone asked "What happens if you steal a stolen car". His answer was:

    • The police won't believe you.
    • You are still handling stolen goods.


  • @blakeyrat said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @Steve_The_Cynic said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    The DJ is telling people how to commit the crime of being an accessory after the fact to another crime. (His advice is addressed to people who have acquired such images, and therefore are accessories after the fact to the crime of creating those images.)

    Ok...?

    Could we finally loop this around now? What the fuck does that have to do with what I posted?

    Or maybe I'll just hit "ignore this thread" because what the hell is wrong with you people.

    The DJ is advising people on how to conceal the fact that they are committing a crime (if being an accessory after the fact is a separate crime in and of itself, rather than a source of criminal liability) and/or the fact that they know of a crime having being committed - look, here's the evidence - and are hiding that. (We won't mention that in some jurisdictions, merely possessing the images is a crime in and of itself.)



  • @Steve_The_Cynic This might be a stupid question.

    Would advertising how to encrypt your data be similar?



  • @Steve_The_Cynic said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    The DJ is advising people on how to conceal the fact that they are committing a crime

    ... and therefore...?

    What. Is. The. Point.

    I mean I don't know if your point is the same as @Captain's but you've replied like 3 times, so you must have SOME point to make here. What is it? Please, it's been like 20 minutes, just spit it the fuck out!



  • @Jaloopa said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    On the one hand, it doesn't derive from the actual abuse of a minor, which is a good thing. On the other hand it does come from the mind of someone who presumably likes the idea of it.

    The thing is, in hentai, there's a lot of content involving rape, murder, and a wide variety of other wrong stuff (mind control, blackmail), and nobody has ever seemed to mind. In that context, to point at a drawing of a loli and say "that's wrong!" just feels silly.

    I think 99% of the people don't "see" those comics as an extension of reality at all. A good indication is that many of them are entirely based on fantasy settings or concepts, and the ones that are not rarely care about having realistic dialogues and all that.



  • @lucas1 said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @Steve_The_Cynic This might be a stupid question.

    Would advertising how to encrypt your data be similar?

    Depends. If you say "hide your criminal pictures and other data by encrypting them", then many jurisdictions will take a dim view of you, especially if you advise one person by person-to-person means. If you merely mention that it is possible to keep your secrets secret by encrypting them, probably not.



  • @blakeyrat said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @Steve_The_Cynic said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    The DJ is advising people on how to conceal the fact that they are committing a crime

    ... and therefore...?

    What. Is. The. Point.

    I mean I don't know if your point is the same as @Captain's but you've replied like 3 times, so you must have SOME point to make here. What is it? Please, it's been like 20 minutes, just spit it the fuck out!

    Since you are unwilling to think for yourself, well...

    He's likely on dubious (at best) legal and/or moral ground by advising people about this. Many people would argue that because of what it is that he is advising people to hide, he is somehow worse than if he were advising people on how to hide tax liabilities, for example.



  • @Steve_The_Cynic That makes sense.



  • @Steve_The_Cynic said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    Since you are unwilling to think for yourself, well...

    Oh. Sorry, I didn't realize this was a little game where I was supposed to guess what your point was without you ever actually saying it.

    @Steve_The_Cynic said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    He's likely on dubious (at best) legal

    Possibly.

    @Steve_The_Cynic said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    and/or moral ground

    But you're replying to a post where I already vehemently disagreed with that. It's not only moral, but quintessentially American to question Government in this way. Sure it might not gain the radio station a lot of good publicity, but I applaud what this DJ was doing. He's convinced in his position, and he's taking advantage of the First Amendment to share that information with the public.

    So now that I finally understand what your point is, I still don't understand why it was made in response to a post where I obviously already disagreed with that point. Look at all the time and effort we've wasted because you just refused to make any kind of argument in the thread. Congratulations.

    @Steve_The_Cynic said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    Many people would argue that because of what it is that he is advising people to hide, he is somehow worse than if he were advising people on how to hide tax liabilities, for example.

    Are you one of those people? Or are you now white-knighting for some imaginary person?



  • @blakeyrat said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    Are you one of those people? Or are you now white-knighting for some imaginary person?

    Not especially. I'd also suggest that in amongst all the rhetoric on the question of child pornography, an important distinction is often overlooked. That distinction is between images (etc) of young children and of near-adult teenagers. The "child pornography is everywhere" moral panic requires that these two things are treated as equivalent, since if they are, then there is suddenly much more of it about, since we can include common-sense deficient teenagers in the lists. (And even if they aren't exactly equivalent, it's still treated as really bad - under such rhetoric - that this girl who will be "legal" the next day sexts her boyfriend who is also one day short of legality, even though the next day, it is "nothing" if they do the same thing and are one day older.)


  • sockdevs



  • @blakeyrat said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    But you're replying to a post where I already vehemently disagreed with that. It's not only moral, but quintessentially American to question Government in this way. Sure it might not gain the radio station a lot of good publicity, but I applaud what this DJ was doing. He's convinced in his position, and he's taking advantage of the First Amendment to share that information with the public.

    Again, he's free to say whatever he wants. Doesn't mean I can't vehemently disagree with it. If someone came out and questioned the government's anti-lynching stance, is that also protected from any kind of angry response, too? The guy's trying to justify facilitating child abuse, and you're damn right I'm going to call him out on being a fucking demented asshat.


  • BINNED

    @blakeyrat said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    I applaud what this DJ was doing. He's convinced in his position, and he's taking advantage of the First Amendment to share that information with the public.

    He's also advising people on ways to commit and hide a crime.

    As an analogy, someone who campaigns for legalising cannabis is perfectly within their rights to do that. They can use arguments that criminalising the cultivation of a plant is silly, that it doesn't harm others, etc. All perfectly fine. If they start talking about the best places to grow your own crop that won't be noticed, how to store your stash in such a way as to disguise the smell or the best ways to get in touch with a trustworthy dealer, that's directly telling people how to commit a crime and get away with it, at which point there's a line, if not being crossed, then definitely approached



  • @Jaloopa Also smoking weed doesn't have the side affect of having children raped.


  • BINNED

    @lucas1 that too. I think that's the first time one of my analogies has broken down on the point of child rape



  • @Jaloopa

    The whole subject is dodgy.

    For example people have got a lot better at cleaning up evidence after a crime since CSI has been on the telly since people will know to wipe for finger prints etc.



  • @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    And now I'm in blind rage.

    I agree with the guy, these laws are ridiculous. Specially when it's 17 year old selfies and drawings.



  • @wharrgarbl said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    And now I'm in blind rage.

    I agree with the guy, these laws are ridiculous. Specially when it's 17 year old selfies and drawings.

    If that were the case, he'd clarify his statement to say that. Instead he's defending himself by saying, "I don't see a correlation between possession of child abuse pictures and taking/publishing said pictures." That makes it sound like he's seriously condoning people who voluntarily stash more heinous examples of child porn than what you're talking about.



  • @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    That makes it sound like he's seriously condoning people who voluntarily stash more heinous examples of child porn than what you're talking about.

    And I agree with him that the current laws are overkill on people that do that.



  • On this subject, there several separate things that are treated as (almost) equivalent by a lot of laws:

    • recording children in sexual positions
    • recording teenagers in sexual positions
    • creating virtual images of that look like children having sex

    I doubt anyone will disagree #1 is bad. Treating #2 as equivalent to #1 (usually through law that define "child" as anyone under 18, regardless of the age of consent) results in ruining teenagers' lives for no real gain (and that goes doubly in the cases of teenagers being charged for creating child pornography of themselves). Treating #3 as equivalent to #1 is punishing sexual deviance (thoughtcrime) rather than actual acts. If someone is excited by children having sex, I'd rather they jerked off to virtual pictures rather than have go around frustrated, because that'd make them less likely to actually molest children (bear in mind that the availability of porn is correlated with lower sex crimes rates).



  • @wharrgarbl said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    That makes it sound like he's seriously condoning people who voluntarily stash more heinous examples of child porn than what you're talking about.

    And I agree with him that the current laws are overkill on people that do that.

    So what do you suggest the sentence should be? Considering the people who do this are effectively creating a profitable business for the sex traffickers and abusers who facilitate this, I believe the laws against this level of activity are absolutely justified.



  • @Khudzlin said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    Treating #2 as equivalent to #1 (usually through law that define "child" as anyone under 18, regardless of the age of consent) results in ruining teenagers' lives for no real gain (and that goes doubly in the cases of teenagers being charged for creating child pornography of themselves).

    That depends on the circumstances. There are teenagers who have been groomed from an early age in trafficking rings to do this stuff. That's just as bad of a crime as #1.

    However, I will agree that in "Romeo and Juliet" cases it shouldn't be treated the same way... as long as both parties were indeed consentual and it wasn't one being overbearing on the other, nor was it distributed to others.



  • @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    trafficking rings

    There's very little proof of the existence of such things. And no, runaway teenagers who turn to prostitution to get money because they can't get a legal job don't count.



  • @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    So what do you suggest the sentence should be? Considering the people who do this are effectively creating a profitable business for the sex traffickers and abusers who facilitate this, I believe the laws against this level of activity are absolutely justified.

    I recognize the current ones as being too high. If it was up to me to define the exact sentence would require more thought. I would consider the idea that you must have to prove the person supported the crime with some paid subscription, and simple having some jpegs wouldn't be enough.

    I base it in a guess that there isn't enough people interested in that to make advertisement a significant source of income for these criminals, and that you can't remain anonymous and make significant money with advertising at the same time.



  • @Khudzlin said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    and that goes doubly in the cases of teenagers being charged for creating child pornography of themselves

    Oh, here's a good thought experiment: we ban child/teen pornography but not adult pornography because we believe children are not mature enough to consent to it. So if I took pictures of myself naked at age 14, waited until I were 18, then released them to the public, would that be OK?



  • I was sleeping with a woman that read vampire erotica that had loads of rapey overtones. She obviously didn't want to be raped or anyone else.



  • @Khudzlin said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    There's very little proof of the existence of such things. And no, runaway teenagers who turn to prostitution to get money because they can't get a legal job don't count.

    Why not? Someone is taking advantage of a child just as well.

    @anonymous234 said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @Khudzlin said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    and that goes doubly in the cases of teenagers being charged for creating child pornography of themselves

    Oh, here's a good thought experiment: we ban child/teen pornography but not adult pornography because we believe children are not mature enough to consent to it. So if I took pictures of myself naked at age 14, waited until I were 18, then released them to the public, would that be OK?

    That's always been a trolley-problem-esque dilemma for me. I don't think the perpetrator should be considered the same level of criminal as one who exploits other children. However, the pictures themselves should not be distributed. The (admittedly thin) justification I can suggest is one cannot retroactively consent to an action which was, at the time, unable to be consented to. If we opened ourselves to the legalization of this kind of activity, I foresee a trend of 14 year olds who take naked pictures of themselves with the intent to distribute them when they're 18, and that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.



  • @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    I foresee a trend of 14 year olds who take naked pictures of themselves with the intent to distribute them when they're 18, and that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    Why? If they don't distribute before that, it's guaranteed that it didn't cause any negative effect in them as children, and they are able to reconsider when they are old.



  • @wharrgarbl said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    @The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:

    I foresee a trend of 14 year olds who take naked pictures of themselves with the intent to distribute them when they're 18, and that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    Why? If they don't distribute before that, it's guaranteed that it didn't cause any negative effect in them as children, and they are able to reconsider when they are old.

    As 14 year olds, they're subjecting themselves to these photos for a reason, though. If we foster a culture where children want to take explicit photos of themselves because there are deviant adults out there who want to wank to them, that's just disturbing to me.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.