Originally posted by: goku
Originally posted by: pinion9
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: pinion9
It sounds like you are trying to defend child porn. Some people get aroused at the thought of wigs and foot jobs. It doesn't mean we should outlaw them on TV. Please tell me about a commercial wherein you are able to see a babies penis, vagina, or anus. Side of the butt doesn't count.
Child pornography is thoroughly defined. Any rendering or picture made to look real should be illegal as well. If there were ever a scene in the Simpsons where Maggie was getting it on with Homer and it showed details, yes, it should be child porn. Fortunately, that won't ever happen.
People have been busted before because they took naked pictures of their baby and filled rolls of film with it. In general, no lewd act or picture depicting lewd acts or the genitalia of children should be allowed. Taking a pic of your kid in the bathtub or standing naked in the yard with his tricycle is one thing; taking a pick of her spread eagle and zoomed in on her cooter is quite different.
Child porn is easy to spot in most cases if you see it. However, it is exceedingly difficult to define properly in laws because every situation is unique.
I think you nailed it when you said "Taking a pic of your kid in the bathtub or standing naked in the yard with his tricycle is one thing". How can you say a picture of your kid naked in the yard is perfectly ok, but a picture of a kid naked on a computer is child porn worth 1-5 years of jail time? The difference is the INTENT of the person taking the photo and the INTENT of the person viewing the photo. Intent is notoriously difficult to prove and even more difficult to define in laws. True, in this particular case, I think the intent is easy to prove. But that isn't true in general.
In my hometown (Columbus, Nebraska) a doctor was arrested for child porn. Why? A mother brought a young child in for a painful growth on the child's genitals. The doctor had never seen it before, and really wanted another opinion. Columbus is a small town and there aren't experts around. So the doctor took a photo of the growth and sent it to a doctor who is an expert on the issue. It was an up-close photo of a child's genitals, spread eagle, and zoomed in. That doctor was arrested, paid probably well over $100k in legal bills, lost his practice, was essentially kicked out of town where his family had been rooted for many years, and yes, he was finally found innocent. But the damage has been done. His reputation, his pocketbook, his business, his friends, his hometown, etc are all gone. Are you to say this is an ok situation?
I'm 100% against child exploitation and child porn. However, I'm simply stating that a one-size-fits-all law will never fit all in this situation.
He was found innocent though. That says more about the legal system and the town than it does the alleged crime.
Some child porn is easy to spot. Like I said before, some people get off on wigs and foot jobs. If I take a picture of my kid naked in the tub, that is okay. If I take 200 pictures of my kid in the tub, that is bad. If I publish it online and let other people see, there is probably something wrong because someone may find that picture and LOVE it....
When you think about it, because some one 'loves something' I think that is bull ****** that they can get arrested for it. I don't think people should get arrested for having child porn on their computer, it's the people that produce the videos with the "EXPLOITED" which I believe should be heavily emphasized since our stupid legal system has created whats called "jail bait" even though some have consented to it. The whole system is complete bull ******, and these holier than thou types on this forum aren't helping things. It shouldn't be a matter of whether or not people are getting off on something to make it illegal, it's whether or not someone was harmed in the process of making it.
If I watch a speeding motorist, changing lanes and see a car accident with another car, should I get in trouble for it? What if I "get off" on watching car accidents? Should I get in trouble?
Now maybe if I put a spike strip down the road, followed the speeding motorist while recording the before and after, watching him crash his car I can understand what I did being illegal. Now I post that video on the internet or send copies to a friend, should they all get arrested for watching the video? Just because something is wrong (FYI wrong is what society deems as not being OK) that doesn't mean that everyone who witnesses it should get in trouble.
Unless they can prove that he made the film(s) and that the child did not consent to it (if they did, it would HAVE TO BE a lesser fine) then the guy should be charged. But if he is just holding footage of illegal activity then I don't believe he should get in trouble.
The problem with a lot of people is that they fail to look at things objectively, for what they really are. I may not be into robbing a convience stores but that doesn't mean if I download footage off the internet of them being robbed that I and anyone else who views it should get in trouble. I understand the intent of the law but it's stupid regardless of what the law maker's intent was behind the laws in the first place.
This topic is so sensitive that people will absolutely refuse to think about what kind of double standards they've set forth, not every child who is in porn or who has sexual relations is "being exploited". But for the ones who are being exploited, forced into these situtations, I can see how horrible, terrifying and traumatizing it can be to have a disgusting, cruel man towering over you forcing you to do things that are absolutely wretched.
Facebook
Twitter