2024-03-29, 15:59 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: This is a big WTF?  (Read 13269 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ConfusedUs
 

Elite (2k+)
**
Posts: 2358

WWW
« on: 2004-04-07, 05:55 »

http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20040...40329pornp6.asp

Quote
State police have charged a 15-year-old Latrobe girl with child pornography for taking photos of herself and posting them on the Internet.

Not even counting the reasoning behind this 15 year old posting nude pics of herself, how the HELL do you get charged for something you did to yourself?
Logged
dna
 
Shub-Niggurath
**********
Posts: 673

WWW
« Reply #1 on: 2004-04-07, 13:05 »

Hey, she posted nude pics of an underage kid.  Still illegal, even if it's yourself.
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #2 on: 2004-04-07, 15:56 »

So planned suicide is murder? Should the corpse go to jail? Or suffer execution? :]
Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #3 on: 2004-04-07, 17:18 »

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's intelligent, in this case far from
Logged
dna
 
Shub-Niggurath
**********
Posts: 673

WWW
« Reply #4 on: 2004-04-07, 17:22 »

Quote from: Devlar
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's intelligent, in this case far from
So child pornography is OK in your book?  
Please note she didn't go to jail for taking pictures of herself, she went to jail for posting the pictures on the internet.  It doesn't matter if it's of yourself, or of the kid down the block.  Posting those pictures on the internet is against the law (in most countries.)
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #5 on: 2004-04-07, 17:22 »

This ranks up there with the law that says it's illegal for your horse to eat a fire hydrant.  Slipgate - Roll Eyes
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
dna
 
Shub-Niggurath
**********
Posts: 673

WWW
« Reply #6 on: 2004-04-07, 17:35 »

I didn't realize that there was such a huge gathering of pedophiles here.
I think I'm going to open my own under-age porn site, and I'll let you guys have discounts.  I'm always looking for new submissions, so if you know any kids around where you live, please take pictures of them and send them to me.  I pay top $$$!!!111oneoneone
QWERTY GALORE!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: 2004-04-07, 17:35 by dna » Logged
death_stalker
 

Makron
********
Posts: 306

« Reply #7 on: 2004-04-07, 17:51 »

Child porn is sick.But if she gets away with it there will be more.How long of a sentence do you reckon she might get?If not that a fine maybe?I'm at a loss on how you'd be charged for something like that.An adult does something similar they get upto 20 years in prison.How about a minor posting self portraits. Slipgate - Distraught Got a headache
Logged

ConfusedUs
 

Elite (2k+)
**
Posts: 2358

WWW
« Reply #8 on: 2004-04-07, 21:20 »

We're not arguing that child porn is bad. It's exploiting children who don't know any better (and even if they do, they shouldn't).

But no one's exploiting this child, except HERSELF. If I punch myself in the eye, do I get charged with assault? No. I'm just stupid.

What the cops should really be doing is looking for the person(s) who infulenced her to post those in the first place.
Logged
dna
 
Shub-Niggurath
**********
Posts: 673

WWW
« Reply #9 on: 2004-04-07, 21:31 »

The story is woefully short on details, but she was charged with, among other things, dissemination of child pornography.  That's like saying selling your own weed is OK (not that I'm turning this into drug VS thread, just an example.)
I'd be inclined to say that is the true intrest of the police as they search for the people that receive her photos.

As far as searching for the people influencing her to do such, they could probably just look at her 15 year old friends.
« Last Edit: 2004-04-07, 21:31 by dna » Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #10 on: 2004-04-07, 22:50 »

Quote
So child pornography is OK in your book?
Posession? Yes
Production? No

I have a problem with any law that has the word "posession" in it. Rather than wasting valuable resources prosecuting guys who sit in their basements masturbating to this, they should be going after the producers who actually abuse children. If your going to throw out the argument that they are one and the same, do show me some proof, since I've found nothing in the way of any substantive studies to suggest that.

There is no link between the viewing of child pornography and the abuse of children.

If this makes me a bad person in your eyes than so be it, but don't make me whip out my Benjamin Franklin quote about security being traded for liberty, since I'm fairly certain its a cliche at this point
Logged
Kain-Xavier
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 917

« Reply #11 on: 2004-04-08, 01:05 »

Quote from: Tabun
So planned suicide is murder? Should the corpse go to jail? Or suffer execution? :]
I'm much in agreement with Tabun's quote right there.  This news really made my day. Slipgate - Smile

I have pondered a lot about the grey areas created by the current obscenity and child pornography laws.  A majority of which revolve around minors viewing or distributing child pornography themselves.  However, I must insist that nudity [] pornography.  The USA has always been stiflingly reserved when it comes to sexuality in media and in our culture.  A minor uploading a nude picture of his/herself does not constitute a cause for alarm in my opinion nor should it be grounds for imprisonment yet it is being treated as such.

I actually knew a girl who did exactly what this girl did.  She took nude pictures of herself and uploaded them to her personal webspace.  Lo and behold some fellow students discovered said pictures, and the pictures were very limitedly distributed around the school.  (The school was relatively small, only around 150 students or so, and most did not have a grudge against this girl so the pictures faded away into obscurity out of respect.  None of the faculty members were informed save a few teachers who had very tight knits with their students.)  She was in tears for several days, but she came away as a stronger person.  To me, her embarrassment was more than enough punishment.  Any more would be overkill.  The same applies to the girl in the news.
Logged

dna
 
Shub-Niggurath
**********
Posts: 673

WWW
« Reply #12 on: 2004-04-08, 04:39 »

Quote from: Kain-Xavier
However, I must insist that nudity <> pornography.
But photographs of a person involved in sex acts is, which is what these pictures were of.
Logged
dna
 
Shub-Niggurath
**********
Posts: 673

WWW
« Reply #13 on: 2004-04-08, 04:58 »

Quote from: Devlar
Quote
So child pornography is OK in your book?
Posession? Yes
Production? No

I have a problem with any law that has the word "posession" in it. Rather than wasting valuable resources prosecuting guys who sit in their basements masturbating to this, they should be going after the producers who actually abuse children. If your going to throw out the argument that they are one and the same, do show me some proof, since I've found nothing in the way of any substantive studies to suggest that.

There is no link between the viewing of child pornography and the abuse of children.

If this makes me a bad person in your eyes than so be it, but don't make me whip out my Benjamin Franklin quote about security being traded for liberty, since I'm fairly certain its a cliche at this point
So... how can you produce something without posessing it?  If something is against the law to produce, how could it be lawfull to posess?  Faulty logic.

Obviously a molester viewing it would molest whether or not he had seen a set of pictures.  But the producers of kiddie pron are by definition child abusers.  
You guys are acting like she is going to go to prison for this.  Most likely she will get some kind of court ordered counseling out of this, which they could only enforce after they find her guilty of these charges.  No charges = no help for her.
And yeah, if you tell me you sit in your basement masturbating to the video of an 8 year old kid being raped, than I will begin to wonder about your moral character.  I won't say that posession will influence a person to change his character, but I will say that posession is signal of character and there is plenty of evidence to suggest this.
Don't make me whip out the social contract you signed to live in this (or, rather, your) country, in which you traded your liberty for security.  You know, those pesky things called laws which you could either change according to laws, or go somewhere else.  If you want to change these laws, you are speaking in the wrong forums - be a politician and fix the wrongs that you see instead of sitting here and whining in a video game forum.   If you wish to leave and not fight them, you lose the right to complain about them.
Logged
dna
 
Shub-Niggurath
**********
Posts: 673

WWW
« Reply #14 on: 2004-04-08, 04:59 »

Quote from: Tabun
So planned suicide is murder? Should the corpse go to jail? Or suffer execution? :]
We will bury your body at the crossroads far far away from hallowed ground, and you will never know eternal peace Slipgate - Tongue
Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #15 on: 2004-04-08, 05:38 »

Quote
So... how can you produce something without posessing it? If something is against the law to produce, how could it be lawfull to posess? Faulty logic
Since the act has nothing to do with its production or possession as you well know, its the abuse that's against the law, that was what I meant by production, as you well know

Quote
No charges = no help for her.
Court ordered parenting, oh I love it

Quote
Obviously a molester viewing it would molest whether or not he had seen a set of pictures.
But not all viewers molest, therefore the causation between possession of child pornography leading to molesation is a spurious one. If this is true what is the point of banning it? The whole idea of posession laws is that they are preventative, and so far there has been no evidence to suggest they are. If we lived in a world where people applied this preventative crap (since in all regards it is) we'd have to ban anything with a sharp edge because it might be used in a crime.

Quote
but I will say that posession is signal of character and there is plenty of evidence to suggest this.
Having a bad character is not against the law, and I'd worry about anyone who would like it to be. You are entitled to your opinion of people, I may think a ton of people are dicks but that doesn't mean I have the right to arrest them

Quote
Don't make me whip out the social contract you signed to live in this (or, rather, your) country, in which you traded your liberty for security.

I signed no such contract, and I agreed to it by no tacit concent. I traded none of my liberty for I want nothing to do with this or any other country's security, if they want to arrest me for something, they better bring a bomb squad because I will continue violating the laws that hurt absolutely no one

Quote
be a politician and fix the wrongs that you see instead of sitting here and whining in a video game forum. If you wish to leave and not fight them, you lose the right to complain about them.

Honestly, you haven't figured out what I do for a living yet? Come'on you're a bright guy
« Last Edit: 2004-04-08, 05:44 by Devlar » Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #16 on: 2004-04-08, 06:07 »

The entire problem with child pornography is that people tend to view what they want to do.  If you're into women, you look at women, if you're into men, you look at men, if you're into animals, you look at animals, if you're into children, you look at children.  Everyone has different tastes, yes, but children are far too easy for someone to take advantage of and abuse, and that abuse even if it does not last physically can last psychologically for the rest of someone's life.  I do see some logic behind the  law here as only pedophiles tend to look at pornographic material involving children, and protecting children from this kind of abuse is a very serious concern.  The idea is to cut the supply AND demand by making it illegal to either produce or possess, thereby cutting down on the number of children abused.  What amazes me is that we actually have people on this forum defending pedophilia as if it were some kind of civil liberty.  There are some things that should never be defended.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #17 on: 2004-04-08, 06:17 »

I too see a logic behind it, the problem is I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that
(Viewing Child Pornography) LEADS TO (Pedophilia)
Quote
What amazes me is that we actually have people on this forum defending pedophilia as if it were some kind of civil liberty. There are some things that should never be defended.

I am defending the right to posess, not the right to abuse. My rights end at your nose
Logged
dna
 
Shub-Niggurath
**********
Posts: 673

WWW
« Reply #18 on: 2004-04-08, 13:57 »

Quote from: Devlar

Honestly, you haven't figured out what I do for a living yet? Come'on you're a bright guy
I know that you complain alot but plan to move to Europe instead of fixing the things you believe to be wrong.  And yes, by living in (your) country, you agree to follow the laws.  Do you have a drivers license?  Did you sign for it?  There's your signiture right there.  You can't pick and choose which laws you want to follow.  It's a set.  All or nothing.  
So it would be OK for me to posess weapons grade plutonium?  It would be OK for me to give it to some terrorist organization with a history of violence?  As long as myself or them don't decide to make a weapon with it, we're OK, huh?  Oh, wait, it would be OK for me to make a weapon because there would be nothing wrong with everybody on the block posessing a 10 megaton nuclear weapon.  Posession is OK.
It's nice how you sidestepped my argument that watching an 8 year old kid being raped is OK in your book.  Unless you believe an 8 year old kid can have consentual sex with someone...

I'm out of time, so I can't argue any more now :p
Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #19 on: 2004-04-08, 16:47 »

Lets start with the on topic stuff
Quote
It's nice how you sidestepped my argument that watching an 8 year old kid being raped is OK in your book.

I'll admit it, its okay in my book, its just as okay as watching a guy being shot to death in a movie is okay in my book, or even watching the news where real people are being burned to death is okay. The only way to know that you believe in freedom of speech is to be able to defend something you don't necessarily agree with. I may not like the fact that this is going on, but I'll defend it, not because its sporking great for society or whatever but because when you introduce one such restriction in the system it gives politicians the authority to create the next one.

Next: Slightly on topic still

Quote
So it would be OK for me to posess weapons grade plutonium? It would be OK for me to give it to some terrorist organization with a history of violence? As long as myself or them don't decide to make a weapon with it, we're OK, huh? Oh, wait, it would be OK for me to make a weapon because there would be nothing wrong with everybody on the block posessing a 10 megaton nuclear weapon. Posession is OK.

You can posess it, they can try to stop the transaction, they can try to stop you from acquiring it,, but they cannot stop you from posessing it once you already have it, and as we have seen with most nuclear politics that's usually the case. They stop development, they stop acquisition but they shut up about posession.

Next: Canada and I, and the joy of tacit absolutism

Quote
I know that you complain alot but plan to move to Europe instead of fixing the things you believe to be wrong.

True, and quite frankly I'm not going to argue and tell you that is not the case, and rather than explaining to you exactly why, since that would require another 3 pages of writing i'll just link you to the last time I did it and you can read it and understand.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/devlar/26...208.html#cutid1
I have no intention of becoming Sisyphus, If you want to do good in this world do it in a place where you actually have the power to, and since you Americans seem to know so little about Canadian Politics (or you would have invaded us by now for having a dictatorship) after reading that you should understand that trying to change anything in the system I currently live in would require a revolution on the Bolshevik scale. Lybia currently has a better system of government than Canada

Quote
Do you have a drivers license? Did you sign for it? There's your signiture right there. You can't pick and choose which laws you want to follow. It's a set. All or nothing.

Do I have a drivers licence? Yes. Do I follow the rules of the road? Yes. Did the contract I signed to get my drivers licence include a clause about what I could posess, whether its drugs or nuclear material Slipgate - Grin? No. If they asked me to sign a document like that today would I do it? No.
I'm fairly certain dictators have used that as an excuse for many years, all or nothing. Tacit consent is not a basis for running a government, if it were, we'd be back up to a point where sovereignty was absolute and dictators are able to do anything to their populations without fear or reprocussions. Since by living here you have agree to the legislature being allowed to kill you for looking funny at one of the political leaders, right? right? Since its all or nothing. Then gladly sign me up for nothing
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to: