• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds bust child porn 'social networking site'

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The facts behind this are appalling, but I love that the people involved have been caught and busted. So many kids involved. It's sickening.

INDIANAPOLIS - Federal prosecutors announced Wednesday that they had broken up a major online international child pornography ring that at its peak had more than 1,000 members trading millions of sexually explicit images.

More than 50 people have been arrested in several states since the 2008 start of the investigation, U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison said in a statement, and authorities said they are seeking the extradition of several suspects from overseas. Immigration and postal agencies also took part in the investigation, along with state and local police.

"This is the largest crimes against children case brought anywhere by anyone," Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven D. DeBrota said.

Feds bust child porn 'social networking site' - Crime & courts- msnbc.com
 

Toothpicvic

Banned
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
462
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why doesn't it tell us the name of the site?
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,226
Reaction score
42,330
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I wonder what this is. If it's actual child porn or things like hentai or lolicon which involve no children. It's actually not a whole lot of detail as to what they were arrested for. I think that a lot of us hear "child porn" and forget all sense and sensibility. Actual child porn, sure that should be prosecuted. But if no real human is involved, then no real crime took place.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wonder what this is. If it's actual child porn or things like hentai or lolicon which involve no children. It's actually not a whole lot of detail as to what they were arrested for. I think that a lot of us hear "child porn" and forget all sense and sensibility. Actual child porn, sure that should be prosecuted. But if no real human is involved, then no real crime took place.
So, every time child porn is mentioned it needs to include the adjective "actual" in order for you to not create alternate meanings in order to have an anti-government angle to argue from?
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,226
Reaction score
42,330
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
So, every time child porn is mentioned it needs to include the adjective "actual" in order for you to not create alternate meanings in order to have an anti-government angle to argue from?
I'm suspicious of things which get whitewashed and utilized to evoke emotional response. This is definitely done currently with child porn. All I'm saying is that I don't know exactly what they are defining as child porn. It could very well involve actual humans, but it may also be simulation. And in my eyes, for people to be prosecuted they have to have actually infringed upon some rights. If there's no humans involved, there's no rights violation. Thus I reserve judgment till I get more information.

Is that somehow unreasonable? Maybe to a statist.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm suspicious of things which get whitewashed and utilized to evoke emotional response. This is definitely done currently with child porn. All I'm saying is that I don't know exactly what they are defining as child porn. It could very well involve actual humans, but it may also be simulation. And in my eyes, for people to be prosecuted they have to have actually infringed upon some rights. If there's no humans involved, there's no rights violation. Thus I reserve judgment till I get more information.

Is that somehow unreasonable? Maybe to a statist.
no no, I agree that unless there are actual children involved then there is nothing that should be illegal about it. Im not a fan of the knee jerk reactions the media tries to get out of the evil 'SEX OFFENDER' bull****. You can be made to register as a sex offender for urinating in public if that tells you anything about those hideous laws.

However,


I just don't go accusing it of being something else to fit my anti-government role around here.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,226
Reaction score
42,330
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I just don't go accusing it of being something else to fit my anti-government role around here.
Oh, I've got plenty to fit my anti-government role (and it's anti-large, intrusive, fascist government, thank you very much. I'm not against all government; I'm against bad government) around here. I don't need this too. I'm actually highly suspicious of a lot of things which come down on these highly emotionalized subjects.

As I said, I reserve judgment. Just saying "child porn sting" whatever doesn't convey any information.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm suspicious of things which get whitewashed and utilized to evoke emotional response. This is definitely done currently with child porn. All I'm saying is that I don't know exactly what they are defining as child porn. It could very well involve actual humans, but it may also be simulation. And in my eyes, for people to be prosecuted they have to have actually infringed upon some rights. If there's no humans involved, there's no rights violation. Thus I reserve judgment till I get more information.

Is that somehow unreasonable? Maybe to a statist.
I'll never understand why a lot of people are ok with drawings and stories as if that's innocent or truly not harming people.

BTW - did you read the whole article? It's not just the top 3 paragraphs. See the bolded in my quote - that is plenty enough for anyone to realize that REAL/ACTUAL abuse was being encouraged/given harbor/accepted/documented. And also note that this happened in 2008.

The U.S. is working to extradite the group's alleged ringleader, Delwyn Savigar, who is serving a 14-year prison term in England for sexually assaulting three underage girls, DeBrota said.

Savigar created and ran a password-protected website from which members could access collections of sexual images — some including as many as a million files — share their fantasies about having sex with children and give advice to each other about how to build their collections and avoid getting caught, according to DeBrota.

Several members were found to have been personally sexually abusing children, sometimes producing images of the abuse. But the group focused on trading explicit images, not producing them, he said.
There's a time and place to play the Devil's Advocate - when it comes to Child Porn freaks that's NOT it.
 

dontworrybehappy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
1,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, that statement shows that a couple of them were abusing children, and taking pictures of it.

That STILL doesn't go into detail about what they were originally calling "child porn." If a guy looks at photos of naked women and wants to abuse kids and takes photos, that doesn't make the original photos illegal.

The child abuse, and production of child porn, where definitely crimes. But the large number of images would indicate to me that most were probably not sexual and most were probably nudist type photos. That's what most "child porn" images are anyway.

Aunt spiker, please tell me, and show me evidence, of who is being harmed with a cartoon depiction of child abuse or stories of child abuse (you have to ignore how abhorrent you feel towards it, we're not justifying it here, just analyzing who is harmed by it.) Remember, dirty thoughts are not punishable by imprisonment.
 
Last edited:

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,978
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'll never understand why a lot of people are ok with drawings and stories as if that's innocent or truly not harming people.
I guess because they hold with that "slippery slope" theory.
Honestly, as much as I find child predation abhorrent, I don't want folks jailed for writing stories or drawing pictures depicting child sex abuse.

I mean, what if it's a female writer, a former victim of child sex abuse, and writing a story based on it is cathartic for her? Or a female artist, a former victim of abuse, who finds it empowering to "own" these experiences and turn them into something positive (ie, art)?
There's a lot of that kind of thinking among feminists I've known- it seems to apply to both rape and child sex abuse.
Although I'm not an abuse survivor myself and don't really know anything about it firsthand, many survivors I've talked to have mentioned feeling a lot of guilt about the fact that they experienced some semblance of sexual pleasure during the abuse (concurrently with pain, horror, disgust, and fear), especially if it was long-term. Apparently this is not uncommon, and some women find "breaking the wall of silence" and talking about it to be empowering.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that creative-minded women might want to write about it, or paint pictures of it, or make sculptures of it, or express it artistically in whatever their medium of choice is.
If perverts then look at this art/ read these stories and get turned on, well, that wasn't the intention of it. The intention of the creator was to exorcise her demons and empower herself and other abuse survivors. To turn a horrible, helpless experience into something powerful and positive.


Another point: do you realize how many popular and classic novels contain descriptions of child sex abuse? Are we going to purge the libraries and have a giant book-bonfire, and go about arresting famous writers like during the McCarthy era?

I guess that's the point when it comes to this slippery-slope theory: where does it logically end?
What constitutes a depiction of "child sex abuse"?
Are novels containing descriptions of teen sexuality to be banned?
If so, I guess I won't be able to write my memoirs after all, as I'd always planned.
I plan it to be something along the lines of Riding in Cars with Boys, a sort of teen-mom empowerment story (although unlike in that esteemed work, the subject of my memoir will not be going on to college and getting a high-powered executive job, ha ha, but will live a semi-fulfilling life nonetheless).

Are we going to ban Vladimir Nabokov's singularly beautiful literary masterpiece, Lolita, which even McCarthy never managed to do? Nabokov's dead now, but perhaps we can go arrest his son, who owns the rights and receives the royalties to that book, which has become an enduring cultural icon throughout the more than half a century since it was published.

Where will we draw the line? Will we ban work and arrest artists who depict children in any manner which we perceive as sexually "inappropriate"?
Who will be the arbiter of what is appropriate and what is not?

We all come from very different backgrounds and experiences, we've all led very different lives.
Artists and writers draw on their lives for their material.
What you're basically saying is that some lives are inappropriate, and therefore those artists and writers are banned from drawing inspiration from their lives, ergo, in effect, banned from writing/ making art.

Then we get into the government interfering with the right to freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right, the very cornerstone of democracy.

And that ^, I suspect, is why most on this forum don't want artistic depictions and literary accounts of child sexuality banned.
They feel the government is already too large and intrusive.

I'm basically a socialist, and so that's not my objection, but I'm also a writer, and the idea of writers being banned from writing about something that is real and exists- or artists being banned from depicting it- concerns me more than I can express here.
 
Last edited:

First Thought

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
6,218
Reaction score
1,859
Location
DFW, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There's a time and place to play the Devil's Advocate - when it comes to Child Porn freaks that's NOT it.
With all due respect, that is your opinion. This is a debate site. If the content of the thread is uncomfortable for you then you may wish to consider a different thread.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I went to a women and children's conference last year and one of the things mentioned that I agree with is that as long as women in the sex industry are criminalized and can't come forward to escape, then their children will also be at risk. Sex tourism tends to follow major world events, like the Olympics, the World Expo, the World Cup, the Superbowl, etc. Wherever there are big "family" events that make a lot of money, pimps will relocate their women and men to the location to maximize profit. If those women already can't say no, then their children are also at risk; and yes, demand for child prostitution exists in North America and it's not a small market.

You have to ask yourself where all of these images are coming from, and it's not as simple as fathers of America taking pictures of their own children, though I'm sure that's a small part of it. The bigger part is fueled by the underground sex industry which is kept invisible by criminalization.

If they want to curb child pornography, then prostitution should be decriminalized (not legalized) so that the women who are mothers can come forward and their children can in turn be protected. Just like the war on drugs, the way the government is going about it is completely backwards and not addressing the root of the situation.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
There a difference, though, between writing a book like Sybil - which detailed out endless sexual abuse by her mother when she was young - and then writing sex-porn stories for gratification of some nature.

One is literary, purely, not meant for pleasure and not written in the form of a pleasurable story - it highlights the negative results, doesn't hold it up in any form of a positive action.
Whereas child porn stories that are unacceptable, though containing the same explicit language, would be meant to entice, excite or stimulate.

dontworrybehappy said:
Well, that statement shows that a couple of them were abusing children, and taking pictures of it.

That STILL doesn't go into detail about what they were originally calling "child porn." If a guy looks at photos of naked women and wants to abuse kids and takes photos, that doesn't make the original photos illegal.

The child abuse, and production of child porn, where definitely crimes. But the large number of images would indicate to me that most were probably not sexual and most were probably nudist type photos. That's what most "child porn" images are anyway.

Aunt spiker, please tell me, and show me evidence, of who is being harmed with a cartoon depiction of child abuse or stories of child abuse (you have to ignore how abhorrent you feel towards it, we're not justifying it here, just analyzing who is harmed by it.) Remember, dirty thoughts are not punishable by imprisonment.
Explain to me how the "large number of images [which] indicate to me that most were probably not sexual and most were probably nudist type photos. In your words: "That's what most "child porn" images are anyway." When the information given "doesn't go into detail about what they were originally calling "child porn."

How can you *assume* that any of them were 'nudist type photos' - and what makes you feel so confident in your belief that's 'what most child porn images are anyway' ?
 
Last edited:

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,978
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There a difference, though, between writing a book like Sybil - which detailed out endless sexual abuse by her mother when she was young - and then writing sex-porn stories for gratification of some nature.

One is literary, purely, not meant for pleasure and not written in the form of a pleasurable story - it highlights the negative results, doesn't hold it up in any form of a positive action.
I feel ya, but I don't trust the government (or even a government appointed panel of "experts") to make that distinction.
They're not writers or artists, they're bureaucrats.
Not being psychic, how could they ever judge the author's intentions?
And when would they ever find the time or the manpower, to review every piece of published material, every piece of artwork that is created and displayed?

Sybil is very sexually graphic and disturbing. Nobody knows for sure how much of it is truth, and how much fantasy.
Nobody can prove what the author's motives were in writing it (I believe it was written by her psychiatrist, wasn't it? I haven't read it since I was a kid).
Certainly nobody can say with certainty that perverts don't read it and get turned on by it. It might be the pedophiles' Bible, for all we know.
It's certainly explicit enough.

I'm just saying; nobody, no matter how "expert", is qualified to judge an artist or writer's intentions, except the artist/writer herself.

And many popular novels and memoirs could very well serve as whack-off material for pedophiles, if they're looking for such material. There is no dearth of literature containing graphic descriptions of children having sex, either consensually or by force or coercion.
It is impractical to the point of unfeasibility, not to mention un-American (ha! I never thought I'd use that word) to begin attempting to ban such material.

Explain to me how the "large number of images [which] indicate to me that most were probably not sexual and most were probably nudist type photos. In your words: "That's what most "child porn" images are anyway." When the information given "doesn't go into detail about what they were originally calling "child porn."

And on that topic, in my opinion nudity /= pornography.
And as a society, it's time we moved away from that harmful and dangerous fallacy.
We all enter this world buck-ass naked, through the vagina of a naked woman.
A nude child is not a sexual object. I think the fact that it is viewed as such by some confused and demented individuals is largely attributable to our society's repressive attitudes toward nudity and the human body.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
For adults, I agree - nudity does not equal pornography. I agree, when discussing adults.

But not when it comes to children. Children don't have the capacity to understand the overall purpose or implication of such things in most situations - they need someone to defend them, not support their perpetrators and give then harbor.

This particular case in the OP - this site was giving harbor and security to those who *did* commit the crime, they produce evidence of their acts - thus - everyone else who witnessed these acts (reading the post, viewing the photo, etc) are guilty by association for failing to report blatant abuse.

The case discussed in the OP is not about "what is child porn" - it is about the fact that a site was there with the sole intent to give people a time and place to revel in child abuse. Does that mean that every single person there *did* abuse a child or *might* have? No, they *all* did not. But they witnessed people who obviously did and were OK with it. . . and that has been and always will be against the law.
 
Last edited:

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,226
Reaction score
42,330
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I'll never understand why a lot of people are ok with drawings and stories as if that's innocent or truly not harming people.
Because it's truly not harming people. I'll never understand why a lot of people are willing to demonize drawings and stories because it has content they don't like or think is icky. I don't know, some people are caught up in book burnings I suppose.

BTW - did you read the whole article? It's not just the top 3 paragraphs. See the bolded in my quote - that is plenty enough for anyone to realize that REAL/ACTUAL abuse was being encouraged/given harbor/accepted/documented. And also note that this happened in 2008.
Ok, some of it was real. Was it by all members or just a few? Who is getting charged with the crimes? Those involved? Those who viewed the picture? The problem is that child porn has become a non-thinkers crime. That is all that must be said is "child porn" and some people lose their minds. They'll excuse any act of government, they will defend all use of punishments even those which could be cruel and unusual. People stop thinking and start reacting on emotion. And that doesn't make for good law. It makes for good vigilantism, but not good laws.

There's a time and place to play the Devil's Advocate - when it comes to Child Porn freaks that's NOT it.
That was a non-thinker statement. There's always room to question what the government has deemed illegal and the methods by which it polices those things.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,226
Reaction score
42,330
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
But not when it comes to children. Children don't have the capacity to understand the overall purpose or implication of such things in most situations - they need someone to defend them, not support their perpetrators and give then harbor.
So you're saying a picture of your child in the bath is child porn then eh? Kinda scary what you're going to go ahead and label as child porn.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
So you're saying a picture of your child in the bath is child porn then eh? Kinda scary what you're going to go ahead and label as child porn.
Some of them could be, sure. On a case by case basis in which a judge would have to consider everything - sometimes it could be WRONG and sometimes it might be OK.

Now, my personal feeling - I think it's bizarre, to say the least, to take pictures of kids while they're naked :shrug: I never have understood that - I stole and burned all the "cutesy nude pics of the kids bathing' from my parent's photo albums.

Now - would it be acceptable for someone, anyone, other than a parent to take, posses or distribute these photos?

If you're claiming that 'nude photos of kids can sometimes be just innocent' then your answer should be 'yes, it's acceptable for Uncle Jon to distribute naked photos of his neice on the net in a password protected underground website that, also, shares explicit stories and images of child porn'

But I have a feeling you would find that unacceptable because NO ONE SHOULD EVER TAKE PICTURES OF KIDS NAKED AND THEN PASS THEM AROUND like that. . . now should they?
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,978
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now, my personal feeling - I think it's bizarre, to say the least, to take pictures of kids while they're naked
I don't think it's bizarre at all.
There are tons of pictures of me without clothes from when I was a little kid in our family albums.
I also have pictures of my sons unclothed, playing in the sprinkler outside (these are from last year. haha, just kidding. They were toddlers).
Also naked baby pictures.

I like these pictures. They help me remember what we looked like then.
I love every part of my children, and every part of myself as well.
There is nothing wrong, nasty, shameful, sinful, evil, or perverted about the human body in its natural state.
I was not brought up to believe there is, nor did I bring my children up that way.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Because it's truly not harming people. I'll never understand why a lot of people are willing to demonize drawings and stories because it has content they don't like or think is icky. I don't know, some people are caught up in book burnings I suppose.

Ok, some of it was real. Was it by all members or just a few? Who is getting charged with the crimes? Those involved? Those who viewed the picture? The problem is that child porn has become a non-thinkers crime. That is all that must be said is "child porn" and some people lose their minds. They'll excuse any act of government, they will defend all use of punishments even those which could be cruel and unusual. People stop thinking and start reacting on emotion. And that doesn't make for good law. It makes for good vigilantism, but not good laws.
Ok - so - the site was shut down, some of these people were arrested and charges have been filed. So, any and all pictures of children which were taken - no matter the original reason they were taken or the "pose" the child's in or the "innocence" of it - are confiscated and no longer for free-distribution over the web.
If a website was sharing naked pictures of ADULTS and shared/spread without consent there would be legal ramifications, too - you cannot take someone's picture without their consent and distribute it widely, no matter what people think or how many people do it all the time.
In the case of children you cannot take said pictures and share them without the parent's consent - and even then, that's up for debate.

The next step? Court and legal litigation for each and every one of these people.

So - why is this so "wrong" - it ended something that, even if *you* don't think it's *porn* it *still* shouldn't have been happening, and these people will be put through the proper legal process just like anyone else caught in the middle of something - whether each individual person did something horrendously wrong, like molest a child, or not.

That was a non-thinker statement. There's always room to question what the government has deemed illegal and the methods by which it polices those things.
My point is that you should be advocating on behalf of the children who may or may not be mistreated, abused and molested by these stories and photos. Everyone's giving harbor to the possible perpetrators while ignoring that *if* these people did nothing wrong they *will* have a day in court in which records and activities on this website will be presented, analyzed and judged on by a jury of the peers.

So - if you want to have such sites open for business and thereby giving even just ONE active pedophile a place of privacy to do his dirty wants then whatever. I'd rather err on the side of safety and caution to shut down any and all avenues of this type of activity in order to PROTECT even just ONE innocent child from being molested and exploited. I really don't give a **** about a pedophiles (even a possible, suspected or *maybe* . .. or even a friend of a known pedophile) rights over the rights of a child.

The MANY children being exploited and mistreated trump the one insane perverted freak who's jacking off to their 'nude in the pool' photo (notice, I'm quite clearly and intentionally discussing a non-porn type photo which a lot of people deem acceptable to take and have).

1069 said:
I don't think it's bizarre at all.
There are tons of pictures of me without clothes from when I was a little kid in our family albums.
I also have pictures of my sons unclothed, playing in the sprinkler outside (these are from last year. haha, just kidding. They were toddlers).
Also naked baby pictures.

I like these pictures. They help me remember what we looked like then.
I love every part of my children, and every part of myself as well.
There is nothing wrong, nasty, shameful, sinful, evil, or perverted about the human body in its natural state.
I was not brought up to believe there is, nor did I bring my children up that way.
Ok, so we disagree on the "ok" of naked photos of moments in the tub, etc. However, I can see the difference between a "picture of my children swimming in the pool" and "a picture of my children swimming in a pool that's been published on a website which is connected to perversion and abuse"
Huge difference in these two arenas.

Would you be OK with someone distributing these same photos on the internet?
What if one of your photos somehow ended up in the hands of a pedophile - on their computer, in their brain, wouldn't you be royally offended and deeply disturbed to say the least?

I'm SURE you would be because you're a respectful and decent parent who loves your children and does NOT want them to be the fantasy in someone's twisted storyline.

The entire situation and details of events surrounding this crackdown definitely doesn't persuade me that this site was nothing but a bunch of loving fathers and mothers admiring their children's innocence and treasuring special moments. I'm trusting that an authority or judge will make a sound call on the case - and I definitely do NOT want to be the person to have to look at these pictures and read these stories and determine the level of guilt.
 
Last edited:

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,226
Reaction score
42,330
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Ok - so - the site was shut down, some of these people were arrested and charges have been filed. So, any and all pictures of children which were taken - no matter the original reason they were taken or the "pose" the child's in or the "innocence" of it - are confiscated and no longer for free-distribution over the web.
Doubt that it's off the web.

If a website was sharing naked pictures of ADULTS and shared/spread without consent there would be legal ramifications, too - you cannot take someone's picture without their consent and distribute it widely, no matter what people think or how many people do it all the time.
In fact it is legal. The paparazzi do it all the time. Or do you think that they get permission from the people they take pictures of before printing it in some sleaze tabloid journal? You don't own photons, the SCOTUS has already decided this one.

In the case of children you cannot take said pictures and share them without the parent's consent - and even then, that's up for debate.
Incorrect. Maybe you can't use it in marketing campaigns or things of that nature. But there is no restriction as you claim in general. Try again.

So - why is this so "wrong" - it ended something that, even if *you* don't think it's *porn* it *still* shouldn't have been happening, and these people will be put through the proper legal process just like anyone else caught in the middle of something - whether each individual person did something horrendously wrong, like molest a child, or not.
I don't go off of things you don't think should happen. It's appearing that you are very zealous about this subject, and zealous people do not tend to make rational and logical decisions. So long as no real person's rights or liberties were violated, then it is of no concern to me. Just because you define something as "shouldn't have been happening" doesn't mean that it's so.

My point is that you should be advocating on behalf of the children who may or may not be mistreated, abused and molested by these stories and photos. Everyone's giving harbor to the possible perpetrators while ignoring that *if* these people did nothing wrong they *will* have a day in court in which records and activities on this website will be presented, analyzed and judged on by a jury of the peers.
Brilliant. The "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry about it" excuse. We're done. That is the end game argument. When you whip it out, you know the person wants draconian measures not granted by the Constitution. If they're not doing anything wrong....HA. How stupid an argument, it's clearly a fascist argument as well. The State has to prove guilt, you've got this whole thing turned around. Which is why zealous people shouldn't be listened to during emotionalized rant. You seem to be in the guilty until proven innocent camp and willing to allow actions of government which it wasn't meant to take. Which is exactly why I say we have to stay away from non-thinkers and emotionalized rant.

No, it's not "if they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about". It's "what powers are granted to the government, did they act according to those prescribed powers, is the law just, is the law within the legitimate power of the government to make". Those are the proper questions.

So - if you want to have such sites open for business and thereby giving even just ONE active pedophile a place of privacy to do his dirty wants then whatever. I'd rather err on the side of safety and caution to shut down any and all avenues of this type of activity in order to PROTECT even just ONE innocent child from being molested and exploited. I really don't give a **** about a pedophiles (even a possible, suspected or *maybe* . .. or even a friend of a known pedophile) rights over the rights of a child.
It depends on what is actually on the site. I don't believe that drawn pictures or stories of fiction count as child porn as no child was actually involved. Until a child is actually involved, there is no violation of rights and thus no crime.

But here you go again on your emotional high horse. "Oh won't someone please think of the CHILDREN!" Thanks Mrs. Lovejoy, but emotional outburst doesn't, IMO, make for valid argument. It's not about protecting even ONE innocent child. It's about upholding the rights and liberties of the individual. That's why real child porn is an actual crime because you've infringed upon the rights of someone else. But anything which did not actually contain a human cannot have infringed upon any right and thus cannot be a crime.

The MANY children being exploited and mistreated trump the one insane perverted freak who's jacking off to their 'nude in the pool' photo (notice, I'm quite clearly and intentionally discussing a non-porn type photo which a lot of people deem acceptable to take and have).
Wow...I think you just made my IQ drop. Brain cells are committing mass suicide after reading this tripe. This is so stupid. "No photos of any kids anywhere for any reason...cause some guy out there may want to spank it to the photo!". What crap. You're entire argument is nothing but an emotional tirade with little to no logic or rational reasoning.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Your attitude is merely leading to a spread of child exploitation. You're trying to find support and solace behind this so called 'logic' and 'reasoning' of yours - when your overall moral compass is misplaced in this situation. You're thinking of the possible criminals being mistreated and I'm thinking of the actual children who are being exploited.


In fact it is legal. The paparazzi do it all the time. Or do you think that they get permission from the people they take pictures of before printing it in some sleaze tabloid journal? You don't own photons, the SCOTUS has already decided this one.
I read through all the rulings of the supreme court on this 'nude photos of children' issue and fail to find anything that states that the distribution of nude-children photos is acceptable as is any other type of photograph taken.

There's an endless debate about *what* is acceptable (nude in the pool - or sexually suggestive of REAL children VS depicted children) but there is absolutely nothing that denotes *who* can decide to distribute photos of nude children - parents or legal guardian VS anyone who sees these pictures and then wants to spread it around without parental consent.

If you know of a particular ruling on this particular issue and can post it then, please, by all means.
LII: Supreme Court Collection Home

So, my view still stands on this issue. The people who have had charges brought against them will be given due process and, if convicted, will be done so with great scrutiny which will consider everything one way or another on a far more balanced scale than I or any of us here could likely provide.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,226
Reaction score
42,330
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Your attitude is merely leading to a spread of child exploitation.
OMG, not this drivel again.

You're trying to find support and solace behind this so called 'logic' and 'reasoning' of yours - when your overall moral compass is misplaced in this situation. You're thinking of the possible criminals being mistreated and I'm thinking of the actual children who are being exploited.

Fact of the matter is that we were built on upholding the rights and liberties of the individual; on promoting freedom above all else. That's what we work towards. Thus, as I have said in terms of child porn it must contain a child to be illegal.

As for this other drivel of "no naked pictures". It's just a stupid, kneejerk overreaction. People take naked pictures of their kids all the time. Rarely do the get "distributed" at large. And no matter what, it's not child porn. It's not sexually explicit material. So we can stop with all this damned stupid nonsense and start taking the issue with clear logical reason.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Fact of the matter is that we were built on upholding the rights and liberties of the individual; on promoting freedom above all else. That's what we work towards. Thus, as I have said in terms of child porn it must contain a child to be illegal.

As for this other drivel of "no naked pictures". It's just a stupid, kneejerk overreaction. People take naked pictures of their kids all the time. Rarely do the get "distributed" at large. And no matter what, it's not child porn. It's not sexually explicit material. So we can stop with all this damned stupid nonsense and start taking the issue with clear logical reason.
So, you're getting your panties in a bunch because the thread's gone off topic a bit? Or because I stated an opinion and then stated some facts about the Supreme Court's lack of ruling? Since you're so haughty about staying logical then why don't you produce the Supreme Court ruling that I couldn't find on this 'nude photo rights' issue.

The only reason why 'naked pictures of kids at a pool party' was brought into this is because someone said "nude pictures of children can be artful and not pornographic" and then proceeded to point that we, here, cannot *see* the photos or images so we don't *know* what they are. We can merely speculate that maybe most of these pictures in question were "acceptable" and not "pornographic"

And then we started to discuss that very issue - since there are no detailed FACTS to go from (IE: we don't know the nature of the photos/images which are shared through this site) the only thing we CAN debate is opinion on the issue.

Now - addressing this:
Fact of the matter is that we were built on upholding the rights and liberties of the individual; on promoting freedom above all else. That's what we work towards. Thus, as I have said in terms of child porn it must contain a child to be illegal.

Since the unknown content of the photos may/may not *be* porn the bigger question is still on the plate: WHO has the right to posses and distribute for ANY purpose an image of a minor which is pictured in the nude - in a non-pornographic or sexually suggestive means?

The Supreme Court has NOT ruled on it one way or another in this particular scenario. Various states have laws that differ and none, as of yet, have been knocked down or reputed and changed. . .

Ohio, for example (text taken from Osborne VS Ohio via Supreme Court) their law prohibits:
"Any person from possessing or viewing any material or performance showing a minor who is not his child or ward in a state of nudity unless (a) the material or performance is presented for a bona fide purpose by or to a person having a proper interest therein, or (b) the possessor knows that the minor's parents or guardian has consented in writing to such photographing or use of the minor."

According to this - a website of non-parents or permitted persons sharing photos of nude children seems unacceptable even if it's not pornographic.

So - apparently, since the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this issue, each state has it's own decisions to make. What is unacceptable in Ohio might be OK in Kansas or otherwise not addressed. In any case the government (Federal or state) has every right to suspect or bring charges against someone - as so does someone's neighbor, especially if there's suspected child abuse going on. It is up to the due process of law: a charge filed, evidence collected and a trial had to convict a person or declare someone innocent.

That is what the case in the OP will boil down to - which is as it should be.
 
Last edited:

Kali

Stigmatized! End R Word!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
13,334
Reaction score
1,835
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There a difference, though, between writing a book like Sybil - which detailed out endless sexual abuse by her mother when she was young - and then writing sex-porn stories for gratification of some nature.

One is literary, purely, not meant for pleasure and not written in the form of a pleasurable story - it highlights the negative results, doesn't hold it up in any form of a positive action.
Whereas child porn stories that are unacceptable, though containing the same explicit language, would be meant to entice, excite or stimulate.




Explain to me how the "large number of images [which] indicate to me that most were probably not sexual and most were probably nudist type photos. In your words: "That's what most "child porn" images are anyway." When the information given "doesn't go into detail about what they were originally calling "child porn."

How can you *assume* that any of them were 'nudist type photos' - and what makes you feel so confident in your belief that's 'what most child porn images are anyway' ?
True but could it not be argued that some folks will still get off on works like When the Rabbit Howls-which makes it child porn even if that was not the intent?
 
Top Bottom