Wirehead Studios

http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20040...40329pornp6.asp (http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20040329pornp6.asp)


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?

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

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

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.)

This ranks up there with the law that says it's illegal for your horse to eat a fire hydrant.  :rolleyes:

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!!!!!!!!

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. O_o Got a headache

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.

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.

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

I'm much in agreement with Tabun's quote right there.  This news really made my day. :)

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.

But photographs of a person involved in sex acts is, which is what these pictures were of.

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.

We will bury your body at the crossroads far far away from hallowed ground, and you will never know eternal peace :P

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

Court ordered parenting, oh I love it

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.

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


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


Honestly, you haven't figured out what I do for a living yet? Come'on you're a bright guy

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.

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)

I am defending the right to posess, not the right to abuse. My rights end at your nose

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

Lets start with the on topic stuff

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


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


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 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/devlar/26208.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


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 ^_^? 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

Back to the topic, the girl in question is 15. Now, somewhere along the line society decided that anyone under the age of 18 is a child. Regardless of the fact that quite a number of people are fully physically developed as young as 13.

Does this make me a pedophile? no. I'm simply making the point that if you dress/undress them right, it's awfully damn hard to tell how old someone is by sight alone. I know plenty of people who were sexually active at 13, and most of them look the same 6 years later. At one point, it wasn't all that strange for 30 year old men to marry 15 year old girls.

By nature, there's nothing particularly odd about a sexually active 15 year old. Society has decreed that anyone under the age of 18, 16 in some principalities, is the equivalent of a 5 year old. We call this a non sequitor.

The law is, in some respects, there to protect ignorant people. There are a large number of laws as such. I'm not saying I agree with them, but changing them could be for the worse.

As for this particular instance. She took pictures of herself and passed them out in chatrooms. This isn't all that uncommon either. I could see them coming down this hard if she was running a pornsite, but personally disseminating the images isn't quite the same.

Maybe we should start arresting ugly people for sharing pics?

Physically, I've seen 13 year olds who looked 18. However, mentally, they're still 13. Sex changes EVERYTHING, and so few kids are capable of realizing that.

I've known a few 13 year olds who were as mentally mature as 18 year olds, and lots of 13 year olds who were physically mature as 18 year olds, but I've never met one that was both. Not saying that's not possible, but they're bound to be very few and far between.

 :offtopic: here for a minute, but it's something I need to say.

Devlar, I took a look at your link there, and I understand your frustration.  Remember when I said "I just have to sit back and wait and the problem will take care of itself" and you accused me of being a do-nothing?  Imagine your frustration with your country, now apply it on a global scale, and you can understand mine.  I know that I cannot fix the problems of this world, I cannot change human nature by myself, nor could I hope to make all of mankind listen to me even if I flew across every city in every nation in some big flashy appearance squawking my fool head off in a futile attempt to get people to listen.  I'd have more AA fire trained on me than I'd really like to have to dodge.  I'm sure you've heard of the Serenity Prayer, as overused as it is?  If not, here it is:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

That is how I live my life while I am here.   It doesn't mean that I should run from a tough fight, but that I should understand the difference between a difficult struggle and an impossible endeavor.  I understand that you wish to make a difference where you can, but consider also that no battle worth fighting is ever an easy one.  Since you wish to enact change throughout the world, I might ask that by traveling to Europe are you only trying to preach to the choir, and look for like minds to agree with you and nod their heads every time you speak?  Be careful that you do not fall into the same trap that other politicians do, and start believing only the echos of the chorus.

Back on topic:

Angst:  The reason it is illegal to do anything with someone under 18 is that the laws consider a person a minor until that age, regardless of physical development.  That person under 18 years does not have the same rights legally as a person over 18 years, so taking advantage of them is no different legally than taking advantage of a 5 year old child BECAUSE of this disparity.  An over 18 adult has every legal right granted with citizenship, and that is why the age of consent is applied at that time and not before.  It also happens to be the age when most high school students finish their primary education and are considered educated enough to make their own way in the world.  It's not just some "arbitrary number" somebody made up.

Here is the thing to a certain degree you are right, but you are wrong, let me explain
I'm not interested in fixing "A country's" political system, I'm interested in fixing the global political system. See the beauty of it is that in global politics there are no rules other than the rules we agree to. So really will I be preaching to the converted? Yes, but do I stop there? No. There is strength in numbers and the only way to go about having a global political transformation is by starting at the top. By ensuring that those basic rights and liberties are agreed on globally then pushed downward whether self interested politicians agree or not. It will difficult, but not impossible since in the last 50 years we have achieved considerable gains. So it can be done, yes some people will have "issues" with it, the first two countries that come to mind is the US and Canada. The US because its become too powerful without any checks on its power and Canada which accepts them in prinicipal but has no one who cares enough to ensure enforcement of the agreements. Its not about making a better person, its about making a better system that can then make a better person.

I refuse to accept things I cannot change, nor will I. Even if I believe the Canadian system is doomed, I will go as usual during our election some time this spring, strand on a table and yell at a crowd and at least inform them that by voting, you are legitimizing a system like this [insert long rant]

Back on topic


I used to have quite a few friends in the modeling industry, you'd go to these parties and you'd meet 12 year olds that look 25 and 30 year olds that act like 12 year olds.


In America, under the law a "person" under the age of 18 is not actually a "person" not in the legal sense of the word


In regards to voting that works, in regard to sexuality and alcohol (but somehow not tobacco, go lobbying!) it seems much more arbitrary

 O_o Ack.  You are indeed correct.  I skimmed past that important detail.  I still do not believe an arrest was warranted however.

...
I guess it's not OK in my book.  I'm not certain how you equate watching illegal porn to freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech is meant to protect a person's right to express ideas, even if they be unpopular.  What are you trying to express by watching people rape other people.  I suppose if you were making a movie where you were raping other people, that would be an idea protected by freedom of speech.  If you really want to take it to the extremes that you want to, raping people on the streets would be protected by freedom of speech.  


The entire idea behind laws of society are to restrict.  Society does not grant people rights, society protects people from the actions of other people.  How can it do this without restrictions?  This is where I am protected from being raped on the streets by restricting your rights to do so.  


So it's OK with you for your neighbot to have a multi-kiloton warhead in his basement because he didn't get caught when he was buying it?  Are you saying that he can call up the police and tell them all about it and then say, "Sorry, you guys were to slow.  I'm already home from the market with it and there's nothing you can do about it?"  Do you think the police are going to just say, "Aw shucks!" and let it go at that?  Or are you confusing nuclear politics with domestic law?  You might find that they are applied quite a bit differently.  By the way, would a nuclear weapon be considered a WMD?  I seem to remember invading a country looking for those.  And before you bring up the conspiracy theories, remember I am talking about the point -> an awful lot of countries decided this was OK for us to do.  Not all of them.  Maybe not even a majority, depending on which theorists you subscribe to, but an awful lot of people decided it was OK.  
My point is: countries do not shut up about posession, but they bide their time and make consessions.  Domestic police do not.  There is no international audiance that will tell the Dallas Swat team to back off if the guy in APT 2B promises not to do it any more.
Ah, you've finaly told me what you do for a living.  You're a disillusioned University student.  How old are you Devlar?  You look like you're in your early 20's maybe.  It's cool how you have already figured out everything.  I"m interested in knowing it so soon.  Did you read it in a book?  Or did you figure out your country wasn't worth saving by trying to and being beaten back?  How many political campaigns did you organize before realizing it was futile?   How long did you live in Lybia to figure out their government was better?   Protests?  Anything?  How long did you live in Lybia to figure out their government was better?  How many Libian refugees did you talk to?  Or is this the just "cool" thing to know at your school?
By the way, as you well know America is "freinds" with many a dictator.  We usually don't invade countries till they start frying people in acid.  That was a jab towards our southern engaement, wasn't it?  Give us a reason Canada.  Then we'll show up with bells on.
So which country in Europe are you moving to that will allow you to decide which laws you will follow and which not?  
I'm not certain how you get to the point where asking your people to follow the laws = supreme power for the state.  Perhaps the Canadian government does suck by not having a system of checks and balances to protect the people.  You're right, I don't know enough about Canadian politics to be able to comment intelligently on anything relating, but I'm fairly certain that the politicians in America would have a hard time passing a law that would enable the killing of citizens for looking funny at them.  You see, we have these rules we call laws built into our law making process.  By RESTRICTING what a law can or can't do to an individual, we are protecting the common citizen against such.  Of course, I suppose that politicians are wealthy enough they could just pay to have any murdered they so choose, but that is still against the law and even they would be punished if found out and caught.
Anyway, if you can pick and choose which laws to follow and which not, why are you bothering to move?  If you feel you are repressed by certain laws, all you have to do is ignore them.  Go ahead, it's OK.
PS - I can't tell what that smiley you used up there is supposed to say,  I hate these slippy things - they all look the same to me.

And this is not totalitarian how?

I'm going to make this short, but one rude word deserves another

Turn on your TV, walk into a school, learn a langauge, you obviously live in a totalitarianism because of it right?

Are you even paying attention? what part of "my rights end at your nose" is difficult to understand? Reading Skills might be useful at a time like this. Watching does not equal doing, that's the last time I'm going to say that since its beating a dead horse at this point. Since with that mentality you could arrest any person who walks by a homeless person who doesn't help them, since obviously you aren't helping and therefore adding to the problem. Do tell me how the hell people are allowed to watch burning bodies on TV on the news yet this makes it something magically different, posessing a newsclipping of a picture of a burning body, of an illegal act is somehow so different than posessing child pornography

Society can restrict actions BETWEEN individuals, no restrict individuals. Society grants people rights as areas where other people or governments cannot enter, that is the point of law. Therefore if there are not two people in an action then there is no way to restrict it, posession cannot be restricted.

Its good to know at 29 you've figured out nothing about the way things work

Where did you learn your politics? Mine? From Books, From Internships, if your going to put down education then really do a better job, since all it does is make you look ignorant, i'd rather be a booksmart and schooled political scientist than neither smart nor schooled.

OH!! now i see where you got your education, from your friends! Good job, keep it up, but pick better friends, because after that nice long post you have done nothing but demonstrate to me how age does not indicate intelligence, maybe you should read some of those books you seem to dislike so much. If I might recommend a few old ones that will explain what law is, and what freedom of speech and expression is since your society is supposed to be based on these principles, try "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills, or "The Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine and "The Two Treatise of Government" by John Locke.

I have not attacked you personally in this thread until this post, which is a response, and it is one thing to disagree with my politics, its a whole other to fling nothing but ad homeim attacks at me directly because you cannot prove your point in any other way, its sad and pathetic, and demonstrates to a much greater degree the level of your intelligence than mine.

I might step in here and ask for some civility between all people affected.   Remember that personal attacks ARE against forum rules, so let's not allow this to degrade to that level.  Let's get back on topic as well.

:offtopic: Devlar, I'm sorry, but you haven't proved a single point to me, either.  This country was not founded on those books.  No where in the Constitution does it say that to see the meaning of the Freedom of Speech, we need to look at book "X".   This is one persons interpretation that you happen to agree with.
I'm sorry I try to think for myself instead of regurgitating others ideas.  When you try those ideas out, let me know how they work. You will find that when you are 29, you will not know as much as you do now.  I know I did.  I expect that as I get older, I will discover I know even less.:offtopic:

Going back on topic, what she did was illegal so she was arrested.  If she didn't deserve to be arrested, then she will have ample opportunity to prove so in court.

-Bright Boy

Yes. Now stop comparing it to self-damage. Different things have different measures.

For the record, it IS against the law to attempt suicide.

The foundation of your country is the French and American revolution, if you refuse to believe the people either were or who knew your founding fathers and helped shape your constitution then you can believe whatever you want. Quite frankly I really could care less what you believe at that point. The fact is you don't have anything to support your interpretation of society and it makes most, if not all, of what you said conjecture and irrelevant.

ALL of this is becoming irrelevant, so everybody please stay on topic.    If you want to debate the founding fathers of the US Constitution, feel free to start a thread for that.  :)

Thread will be closed if it doesnt hop back on topic with what it was about to begin with, only warning.