Judge Weinstein Takes On Child Pornography Laws

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” His most recent crusade is particularly striking because of the beneficiary: a man who has amassed a vast collection of child pornography.

Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next jury about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.”

There is little public sympathy for collectors of child pornography. Yet across the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 20-year child pornography sentence by ruling that the sentencing guidelines for such cases, “unless applied with great care, can lead to unreasonable sentences.” The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child.

Judge Weinstein has gone to extraordinary lengths to challenge the strict punishments, issuing a series of rulings that directly attack the mandatory five-year prison sentence faced by defendants charged with receiving child pornography.

“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.

“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”

The man he has spent three years trying to save from a long incarceration is Pietro Polizzi, a married father of five who collected more than 5,000 graphic pictures of children. If prosecuted in a New York State court, he would have faced a maximum prison sentence of four years. Instead, in federal court, he faced a minimum of five years and a recommended sentence of 11 to 14 years. Because of Judge Weinstein’s intervention, he remains free as he awaits another trial.

“I don’t see Judge Weinstein as a judge,” Mr. Polizzi said during an interview as tears rolled down his face. “I see him as my father. He helps people. He doesn’t destroy lives the way the prosecutor has. He’s the one who is going to set me free from the court.”

The child pornography industry has flourished through the Internet, with the number of federal cases growing from fewer than 100 annually to more than 1,600 last year. As the number grew, Congress increased the recommended prison terms and established a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for anyone convicted of receiving child pornography. According to the federal defenders office, the average sentence was 91 months in 2007, up from 21 months a decade before.

But the tough penalties have chafed at many judges, echoing previous battles over drug cases. Last year, judges imposed sentences below the recommended range in more than half of all child pornography cases.

“What has caused concern in courts across the nation is that we have a lot of relatively law-abiding individuals sitting in the basement downloading the wrong kind of dirty pictures facing not just prison sentences but incredibly long prison sentences,” said Douglas A. Berman, a professor at Moritz College of Law, who studies sentencing issues.

In one recent case, James L. Graham, a United States District Court judge in Ohio, sentenced a 67-year-old man who had suffered a stroke to a single day in prison, along with restrictions on computer use and registration as a sex offender. As part of a deal with prosecutors, the man had pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, which carries no mandatory sentence.

“When you have to sit there on the bench and look at someone like my stroke victim and say, ‘I have to send this man to prison for six years,’ it just doesn’t feel right,” he explained in an interview. “It’s not right.”

Child advocates like Ernie Allen, the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, are upset by such thinking. “Real children are harmed in the production of these images,” he said, “and these same children are harmed every time these images are downloaded and viewed.”

At 88, Judge Weinstein is one of the longest serving members of the federal bench. Supporters praise his taking unusual actions in pursuit of his notions of justice, like for a time refusing to handle drug cases out of opposition to mandatory minimums. Critics say that in the process, he disregards the law.

(On Thursday, he made headlines by refusing to dismiss a lawsuit by a public school teacher removed from the classroom for allowing students to use vulgarities during a lesson on H.I.V. He ruled that she appeared to have followed the spirit of a state syllabus that directed that students be encouraged to use sexual terms they understood.)

“Jack is somebody who will step out and do what he thinks is right and take his chances of being overturned by an appeals court,” said John S. Martin, who cited his disagreement with mandatory sentences when he retired from the federal bench in Manhattan. “He sees the injustice in these things and he tries to do something about it.”

Both sides point to his efforts in the Polizzi case as quintessential Weinstein.

In 2005, Mr. Polizzi signed up for a child pornography Web site. He began obsessively stockpiling thousands of images, mostly of prepubescent girls. When F.B.I. agents arrived with a search warrant, he led them to the two-story garage where he kept his collection behind locked doors, saying, “The pictures of the children are upstairs.”

Child pornography cases almost always end with guilty pleas. But when the case was assigned to Judge Weinstein, Mr. Polizzi’s lawyer recommended that he go to trial.

The lawyer used an insanity defense, claiming Mr. Polizzi had been repeatedly raped as a child and had collected the pictures not for sexual gratification, but in hopes of finding evidence of his own abuse — claims the prosecution dismissed as implausible. When the first of the images were shown in court, Mr. Polizzi collapsed and was taken to a hospital.

The jury was given the standard instruction not to consider possible punishment during deliberations. After three days, on Oct. 5, 2007, Mr. Polizzi was convicted of all 12 counts of receipt of child pornography and 11 counts of possession. Then Judge Weinstein broke from the script with a question almost never posed in court: If the jurors had known about the minimum prison sentence, would they have voted to convict?

Five jurors spoke up against imprisonment. Two said they would have changed their votes. Judge Weinstein tossed out the guilty verdict on the more serious receipt counts and ordered a new trial. He sentenced Mr. Polizzi to a year in prison for the possession counts, which Mr. Polizzi has served.

Judge Weinstein declared that Mr. Polizzi had a constitutional right to have a jury know the punishment that would accompany a guilty verdict, a right he said he had violated. He pledged to inform the next jury of the mandatory minimum sentence. That idea, floated by a federal judge in Manhattan several years earlier in another child pornography case but rejected on appeal, would give jurors the option of refusing to convict if the punishment seemed disproportionate, as several jurors had indicated they believed it was in Mr. Polizzi’s case.

“That was quite an unusual way of handling it,” said Amy Baron-Evans, the national sentencing resource counsel for the federal public defenders’ office. “Usually the judges are just stuck with the mandatory minimum.”

The Court of Appeals last year overruled Judge Weinstein’s order of a new trial, but left unresolved whether it was permissible to tell the jury about the punishment. The case was remanded, and Judge Weinstein, after consulting with other District Court judges, again ordered a new trial, though this time on different grounds. And again he pledged to inform the jury of the mandatory minimum sentences. That decision is under appeal.

In the meantime, the cases keep coming.

On Wednesday, Judge Weinstein dealt with a man who had pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. He imposed the mandatory five-year minimum prison term, though unhappily.

“This is an unnecessarily harsh and cruel sentence under the circumstances,” he said. “The court has no alternative under the statute. This defendant requires treatment and a stable life outside of prison. Prison will only harm him and will do nothing to protect society, since he does not constitute a risk of crime or any acting out towards children.”

“I’m sorry,” he added, “there is nothing I can do in this case.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?pagewanted=1&ref=nyregion&src=mv

[blackwave]

Looking at child porn is one of those offenses where prison seems pretty tricky to justify. I suppose the argument is that by downloading images one is encouraging their production, for I can't think of any other cogent argument. I can only really see the sense in that argument if there is evidence of someone actively involved in a forum or whatever saying 'more pictures please'.

[Quail]

A long prison sentence seems like an unfair sentence for such a crime and

The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child.
just seems insane.


“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”
It's good to read things like this. There has been a massive moral panic in the UK about pedophiles. People looking at pictures of child pornography are not directly harming children, and the majority probably pose little if any threat at all to children around them. Obviously the making of such images is abusive to children, but prosecuting the people looking at them isn't going to solve anything. In the end, they will still be attracted to children. Perhaps looking at pornography could even help them to not harm children because it gives them an outlet for their feelings.

[GreenCommunism]

unlike the moralistic approach of before. pornography does not encourage rape. and i was pretty schocked to find out that certain studies shows that even child pornography does not encourage rape, in fact it diminishes these incidents in country where said pornography is more prevalent. that said, i think those who produce child pornography should be prosecuted though i guess it is very hard to do so.

i find it hard to believe that when someone downloads such pictures they are encouraging it's creation, the only plausible way would be if someone pays for such material.

i don't understand what they mean when the child advocates says that each time those pictures are viewed they are harming these children again, perhaps they mean that it is another person viewing them in a humiliating way?

[Saorsa]

People who stockpile child porn deserve to be castrated. Don't waste sympathy on scum like that.

[Quail]

People who stockpile child porn deserve to be castrated. Don't waste sympathy on scum like that.

What would you do about people who wish to look at child pornography in a post-revolutionary society, out of interest? Castrating people doesn't sound very progressive to me.

[GreenCommunism]

People who stockpile child porn deserve to be castrated. Don't waste sympathy on scum like that

well yeah... i agree we need eugenics,just like you said!! there should be a clear difference between those who commits sexual abuse and those who don't though.

i agree there's nothing lower in the human race though.

[blackwave]

People who stockpile child porn deserve to be castrated. Don't waste sympathy on scum like that.

Glad to see you laid out the clear rationale for your argument there. I look forward to a revolutionary society filled with emotionalists like yourself, it'll be utterly retrogressive.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Some of our leftists can give the most conservative reactionaries a run for their money.

[GreenCommunism]

well in some countries penalties for true offenders are outrageously low. especially when they can leave at 1/8 of their sentence but this changed in canada. also, higher penalty for crimes are note necessarily always conservative, since rape was not considered as bad as it was and feminist movements worked hard on the state giving out punishment that the crime deserves.

actually i think it is because the law takes into account that the reputation of a person is ruined when he commits sexual crime, especially toward the most vulnerable. no such thing happens in united states ruling. also sometime they have to tell everyone in their neighbourhood the crimes they commited. i personally doubt this would prevent crimes from happening again except if such criminal propose to be a baby sitter. i have the same attitude toward photos of sex offender in the journal.

[28350]

There is an important difference between pedophiles and child abusers.

[Ocean Seal]

This isn't necessarily a good thing. The people that watch child pornography are supporting an industry of those who do harm to children directly. They have a choice to avoid this and yet they allow criminals to rape children. What the police should focus on doing is turning those who watch the child pornography against those who make it in the event that they know who these pedophiles are. If the police is able to do this effectively they could be liberating children around the globe.

[GreenCommunism]

The people that watch child pornography are supporting an industry of those who do harm to children directly.
only if they pay or voice their support.

What the police should focus on doing is turning those who watch the child pornography against those who make it in the event that they know who these pedophiles are
i think they are more careful than that and usually blur the pictures when their faces are in it, good thing is that police can reverse this with programs.

[Saorsa]

I apologise to everyone for forgetting how important it is for communists to defend people's right to stockpile images of children being raped.

[JacobVardy]

only if they pay or voice their support

I'd be surprised if there were child pornography available for free. Its rightly illegal, so much so that a lot of other crooks won't touch it. Given the risks involved in disseminating it, those who do would want to be well compensated. That said, it does seam wrong that there are higher sentences for owning rather than making.

[Chambered Word]

I apologise to everyone for forgetting how important it is for communists to defend people's right to stockpile images of children being raped.

And I apologise to Alastair for forgetting how important it is to indefinitely lock up criminals - many of them in their situation due to mental illness or socio-economic realities - or kill them outright instead of attempting to rehabilitate them so they can function in society without being a danger. Because we know how well your method is working in the US.

I don't think any of us have any misplaced affection for people who download child pornography (and I certainly have my own strong disdain for criminals in general), we're just level headed individuals who don't get themselves riled up on the internet at every opportunity about whatever moral injustice is occurring and call for shootings to happen like some 60 year old men watching Today Tonight.

[Saorsa]

Out of all the injustices in the world, all the aspects of bourgeois law that need to be challenged, from racial profiling to locking people up for selling pot... you guys feel the need to waste your sympathy on people who jack off to videos of children being raped.

I don't seriously endorse castration for people who view child porn, I should clarify that. However, I fully support it being a punishable offence. Rehabilitation and treatment should be provided in the course of the prison sentence, but this is not a victimless crime and it is ridiculous to portray people who like watching children get raped as victims.

The law could be amended to work better, sure. But it's beyond me why any of you are wasting a moment's sympathy on the Pietro Polizzi's of the world.

[Chambered Word]

Out of all the injustices in the world, all the aspects of bourgeois law that need to be challenged, from racial profiling to locking people up for selling pot... you guys feel the need to waste your sympathy on people who jack off to videos of children being raped.

I don't seriously endorse castration for people who view child porn, I should clarify that. However, I fully support it being a punishable offence. Rehabilitation and treatment should be provided in the course of the prison sentence, but this is not a victimless crime and it is ridiculous to portray people who like watching children get raped as victims.

The law could be amended to work better, sure. But it's beyond me why any of you are wasting a moment's sympathy on the Pietro Polizzi's of the world.

I suspect the thread was started because the OP had an interesting article to share, not because this is one of RevLeft's particular priorities.

If this is what your attitude towards the issue really is then I don't understand why you're having a go at the people in this thread. No one is wasting a moment's sympathy on anyone. :rolleyes:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'd be surprised if there were child pornography available for free. Its rightly illegal, so much so that a lot of other crooks won't touch it. Given the risks involved in disseminating it, those who do would want to be well compensated. That said, it does seam wrong that there are higher sentences for owning rather than making.

Suddenly a parallel to certain pot-legalisation arguments appear...

[GreenCommunism]

I'd be surprised if there were child pornography available for free. Its rightly illegal, so much so that a lot of other crooks won't touch it. Given the risks involved in disseminating it, those who do would want to be well compensated. That said, it does seam wrong that there are higher sentences for owning rather than making.

i think they do it out of hobby. also this is the internet, everything can be copied, so if one person buys the image he can give it to all of his friends, or sell it at a lower price.i don't think there is such mad punishment as to really deter people from it, those who get caught are careless or trying to share it with someone else who disapprove.

personally i find the claim that it is an illness ridiculous. this is just a way to categorize unwanted behavior. though some have stronger brain activity when showed with photos of children rather than normal porn, most criminal of this kind ( it was around 93% i think) do not have this feature. if there is an illness linked to it, it is post-traumatic stress. since often they are people who were abused. thus they repeat behavior that was done to them. less than 50% or more of those who were abused do not become aggressor though, it should be stressed as there is some discrimination and taboo toward victims.


but this is not a victimless crime and it is ridiculous to portray people who like watching children get raped as victims.

what if the children is merely stripped naked and not raped? of course it is humiliating and wrong. but if such pornography is shown not to cause increase in sexual abuse toward children, and that the person does not pay for it thus increasing incentives for those pornography to be created. i don't see how it isn't victimless crime. beside even if the person pay, it's like saying you are guilty of supporting gangs when you buy drugs. the issue is radically different but there is a logical comparison.

also what about hentai? the pedophiliac cartoons where 1 image out of 2 is pedophiliac or and the other are barely legal 18s. no children is harmed during the making of that pornography.

[Saorsa]

personally i find the claim that it is an illness ridiculous. this is just a way to categorize unwanted behavior.

Wtf? Paedophilia is a disease at best and a sickening and unacceptable perversion at worst. At the very least people who stockpile huge amounts of child abuse imagery need to be reeducated until they accept it being wrong. What would you propose happen?

It's worth noting that there is a difference between someone stumbling across child porn on 4chan, watching a video or two out of some twisted, fucked up curiosity... and someone stockpiling enormous amounts of it. That indicates that the desire to rape children is deeply rooted in this person's personality and that they see their behaviour as at least partially acceptable.

A person with thousands of images of children being raped saved on their computer is a danger to society, and should be kept separate from society until they change, willingly or not.


what if the children is merely stripped naked and not raped?

Well that depends, obviously. People shouldn't be taken into custody for having a picture of their nephew in the bath saved on their computer.

However, rape isn't just penetration. Any form of nonconsensual sexual activity is rape, and children cannot give informed consent.


beside even if the person pay, it's like saying you are guilty of supporting gangs when you buy drugs. the issue is radically different but there is a logical comparison.

Drug dealing does not fuck people up in the same way that rape does. There's no comparison there.



i don't see how it isn't victimless crime

That's worrying.

[GreenCommunism]

some psychologist disagree that it is an illness. that's what i meant. i don't believe they have attraction. in fact it falls in line with perversion. i didn't say it was natural or acceptable. i personally can't find any reason why sexual attraction wouldn't be rooted out by natural selection. a simple minded theory is that those people are still young in their mind, but as far as i remember, i didn't have sexual attraction to anything when i was young (doh) the worse that could exist is childhood love, like walking hand in hand with the opposite sex.

if people who stockpile enormous amount of it, do not distribute it and do not do sexual abuse. then whose the victim? the people whose photo are taken? but those photo are taken regardless. and what about a man with huge collections of hentai?

That indicates that the desire to rape children is deeply rooted in this person's personality and that they see their behaviour as at least partially acceptable.

deep desire perhaps, but some homosexuals repess their homosexuality and it doesn't work very well ( albeit i don't think it can be compared to homosexuality). and why would stockpiling that sort of porn make one thinks his behavior is partially acceptable?

i cant think of much non-consensual sex activity that doesn't include penetration. and i said that stripping naked children to take photos are wrong period. i know you're going to bring up touching what does that have to do with photos.


Drug dealing does not fuck people up in the same way that rape does. There's no comparison there.

there is a comparison, child pornography doesn't cause higher child molesting statistics, unless the statistics i've seen were created by child molesters themselves ( which is quite possible anyway). so the real people doing the harm (those who take the photos, or fighting for streets corner to sell drugs) are supported by those who buy the photos, or buy the drugs. oh and when a drug dealer kill somebody to keep his business going how does that not fuck families. sure the impact is less concentrated on a person. but it ruins lives too. though in some way i agree that it is a serious matter and that whole communities are shocked.

problem is if we legalize drugs, the drug dealers will go out of business. if we legalize child pornography. those people are expanding their operations. the same kind of problem that might happen with prostitution being legalized.

on the other side of this, my country has far too soft punishment for sexual abuse. i personally find it pointless to attack people who have not yet committed violent crimes no matter if those crimes are extremely under-reported. there should be strong punishment for those who are caught. i think the fact that society is too soft on those people actually causes situation where people are falsely accused of such things and thus their lives are destroyed. at the same time, people are allowed to counter-sue if their reputation are destroyed, so a real offender whose case did not have enough proof can counter-sue for extra-cruelty points.

[Crux]

some psychologist disagree that it is an illness. that's what i meant. i don't believe they have attraction. in fact it falls in line with perversion.
Explain. And please tell me you're not saying what I think you're saying.


i didn't say it was natural or acceptable. i personally can't find any reason why sexual attraction wouldn't be rooted out by natural selection. a simple minded theory is that those people are still young in their mind, but as far as i remember, i didn't have sexual attraction to anything when i was young (doh) the worse that could exist is childhood love, like walking hand in hand with the opposite sex.
That's real interesting, dude. Ever stop and thought it might have something to do with, primarily but not only, dominance and power? Sure there may well be bioligical factors involved, but i am always a bit worry when someone tries to push a strict biological angle. Biology is politics too, for example: eugenics.


if people who stockpile enormous amount of it, do not distribute it and do not do sexual abuse. then whose the victim? the people whose photo are taken? but those photo are taken regardless. and what about a man with huge collections of hentai?
Are you some kind of liberal? It's not just about the victim, it's about a society which has a deeply schizofrenic (as empty moralism in capitalöist society often is) view on child abuse and an economic system that in effect condones it, as sexuality is made into a commodity. This includes your children.



deep desire perhaps, but some homosexuals repess their homosexuality and it doesn't work very well ( albeit i don't think it can be compared to homosexuality). and why would stockpiling that sort of porn make one thinks his behavior is partially acceptable?
Why would it seem aceptable? Because you call it a victimless crime maybe?



i cant think of much non-consensual sex activity that doesn't include penetration. and i said that stripping naked children to take photos are wrong period. i know you're going to bring up touching what does that have to do with photos.
It's a sexual invasion on children's integrity for the purpose of selling them as commodity. Children abused in these kind of material are seldom abused just once.




there is a comparison, child pornography doesn't cause higher child molesting statistics, unless the statistics i've seen were created by child molesters themselves ( which is quite possible anyway). so the real people doing the harm (those who take the photos, or fighting for streets corner to sell drugs) are supported by those who buy the photos, or buy the drugs. oh and when a drug dealer kill somebody to keep his business going how does that not fuck families. sure the impact is less concentrated on a person. but it ruins lives too. though in some way i agree that it is a serious matter and that whole communities are shocked.
Just what kind of stastics were you looking at?
I am willing to believe that. That does not take away the essential question. In some ways you agree? Why did you want to compare it to drug dealing in the first place?


problem is if we legalize drugs, the drug dealers will go out of business. if we legalize child pornography. those people are expanding their operations. the same kind of problem that might happen with prostitution being legalized.
I don't want to get into a drug-policy discussion, but that is something worth discussing in itself. I still don't see how you don't see a difference between selling human beings for sex and selling drugs, or rather what is the purpose of your comparison? What point is it you wish to make?


on the other side of this, my country has far too soft punishment for sexual abuse. i personally find it pointless to attack people who have not yet committed violent crimes no matter if those crimes are extremely under-reported. there should be strong punishment for those who are caught. i think the fact that society is too soft on those people actually causes situation where people are falsely accused of such things and thus their lives are destroyed. at the same time, people are allowed to counter-sue if their reputation are destroyed, so a real offender whose case did not have enough proof can counter-sue for extra-cruelty points.
Uhm what? Seriously I don't understand what you are saying. This is not a question of punishment, this is a question of rehabilitation and social change.

[Crux]

i think they do it out of hobby. also this is the internet, everything can be copied, so if one person buys the image he can give it to all of his friends, or sell it at a lower price.i don't think there is such mad punishment as to really deter people from it, those who get caught are careless or trying to share it with someone else who disapprove.
See that's not how it usually goes down. Usually child porn is turned up when someone is looking through someones computer. You see these traders in child pornography work in secret rings, and many of their members produce the pornography themselves, which is why there is generally such a secret around it. So they do not mail out pictures to their friends unless you mean their "friends" in the child porn community. When new material has to be made the community provides. So in essence you have the buyers being pretty close with the producers.
Imagine (now I don't know there may be such a thing) that there was a snuff film community where the producers of snuff (I mean the real deal here) generally hanged around, discussing with their customers on how to kill people. Would you call that a victimless crime too? After all, most of them wouldn't be killing people.


personally i find the claim that it is an illness ridiculous. this is just a way to categorize unwanted behavior. though some have stronger brain activity when showed with photos of children rather than normal porn, most criminal of this kind ( it was around 93% i think) do not have this feature. if there is an illness linked to it, it is post-traumatic stress. since often they are people who were abused. thus they repeat behavior that was done to them. less than 50% or more of those who were abused do not become aggressor though, it should be stressed as there is some discrimination and taboo toward victims.I have not sufficient expertise to decisively say, but as usual I tend to try to see the larger picture. Uh, what. the. fuck. less than 50%(!) of abuse victims become abusers themselves? Are you sure you are getting this right? You seem to "think" a lot of stuff.



what if the children is merely stripped naked and not raped? of course it is humiliating and wrong. but if such pornography is shown not to cause increase in sexual abuse toward children, and that the person does not pay for it thus increasing incentives for those pornography to be created. i don't see how it isn't victimless crime. beside even if the person pay, it's like saying you are guilty of supporting gangs when you buy drugs. the issue is radically different but there is a logical comparison.dude I am not even touching that one again. Let me just say I am appalled and in disbelief as to what you are saying.


also what about hentai? the pedophiliac cartoons where 1 image out of 2 is pedophiliac or and the other are barely legal 18s. no children is harmed during the making of that pornography.Why are you relativizing the rape of children? I think I have already made my point pretty clear.
Oh yeah and I'd like to add the arbitrary line defining the age of consent, while it of course does of course not mean making and distributing pornography of people from say 15-17 wouldn't be abusive, but it is not the *same* thing as pedofilia at all. The reason I bring this up is to try and explain what pedophilia is as it is sort of important to the topic. Roughly speaking before that time it is not possible to make sexual consent (think, pre-puberty), as I tried to explain, pornography in itself, as a phenomenon is oppressive (arguably because it reflects a oppression but it also perpetuates it) adding the rape of children to that, or even just the comodifcation of children's sexuality (if it can even be described as such). Wanting to rape children is not okay, all right? Neither is getting off of the product of that rape. For many different reasons.

[GreenCommunism]

grr , i had a large fucking post but i got logged off and now i have to write it all over. oh well.


Explain. And please tell me you're not saying what I think you're saying.

what do you think i'm saying?


That's real interesting, dude. Ever stop and thought it might have something to do with, primarily but not only, dominance and power? Sure there may well be bioligical factors involved, but i am always a bit worry when someone tries to push a strict biological angle. Biology is politics too, for example: eugenics.

i'm saying caveman weren't that stupid when they saw somebody hurting their children they would kick his ass and expel him from the tribe, and all tribes he subsequently joined would do the same. alpha male or not the whole tribe ganging up on an individual has no chance. the point i am trying to make is that i don't believe it can be genetics like homosexuality. that's it.


Are you some kind of liberal? It's not just about the victim, it's about a society which has a deeply schizofrenic (as empty moralism in capitalöist society often is) view on child abuse and an economic system that in effect condones it, as sexuality is made into a commodity. This includes your children.

i don't think society condones it, it is illegal. and there are scandals on television. also people massively deserted the catholic institution partly because of this

Why would it seem aceptable? Because you call it a victimless crime maybe?

i was refering to his comments saying that those who watch this kind of porn believe it is acceptable and i disagree that it has anything to do with their attitude toward it, if they disagree that it is acceptable to really do these things they would be ashamed of themselves. if they think it is, then there are good chances that they will become aggressors.


Why would it seem aceptable? Because you call it a victimless crime maybe?

it doesn't fit the definition of victimless crime. but it has the potential to be. if the children doesn't ever find out he was taken picture of in a sexual way. and the person using those photos never commits real life rape.


It's a sexual invasion on children's integrity for the purpose of selling them as commodity. Children abused in these kind of material are seldom abused just once.
of course, this is horrible. but my point is that i don't know how the person using those photos are helping the one producing them. i read your second post and if it is true. well then ok, but i was under the impression that there were websites with people hiding behind proxies or some device like this. and that's where such material was.

Just what kind of stastics were you looking at?
I am willing to believe that.
i will look to find them, the study was about pornography and also included child pornography. if those studies are wrong then i will feel very stupid and do think in this case it's better to be on the side of caution though. but if those studies are true i think it is worth thinking twice about giving them penalties as harsh as those who abuse children without penetration.

In some ways you agree?
agree with what?

I don't want to get into a drug-policy discussion, but that is something worth discussing in itself. I still don't see how you don't see a difference between selling human beings for sex and selling drugs, or rather what is the purpose of your comparison? What point is it you wish to make?
i compare everything from sex to gambling to drugs to extreme sports. it sounds dumb i know but i personally see the link. everyone just calls me retard on that one :/.

Uhm what? Seriously I don't understand what you are saying. This is not a question of punishment, this is a question of rehabilitation and social change.
according to another statistics that i probably won't find, rehabilitation changed the 71% recidivist rate to 50%. so it does something ,but not quite much. of course we don't really like punishment. but how about keeping these people in a jail so they don't abuse other children?

See that's not how it usually goes down. Usually child porn is turned up when someone is looking through someones computer. You see these traders in child pornography work in secret rings, and many of their members produce the pornography themselves, which is why there is generally such a secret around it. So they do not mail out pictures to their friends unless you mean their "friends" in the child porn community. When new material has to be made the community provides. So in essence you have the buyers being pretty close with the producers.
Imagine (now I don't know there may be such a thing) that there was a snuff film community where the producers of snuff (I mean the real deal here) generally hanged around, discussing with their customers on how to kill people. Would you call that a victimless crime too? After all, most of them wouldn't be killing people.
if it is the way you say it is then okay, but i somehow doubt it. basicly nobody is able to stop any flow of information effectively on the internet. they may take precautions such as deleting the materials after they use it, but i am sure there are ways to have such site online. like having the website on a usb card in a public library.

I have not sufficient expertise to decisively say, but as usual I tend to try to see the larger picture. Uh, what. the. fuck. less than 50%(!) of abuse victims become abusers themselves? Are you sure you are getting this right? You seem to "think" a lot of stuff.
i did not say less, i also did not think this, it is from a paper on children sexual abuse which said that often pedophiles had a history of sexual abuse themselves. but that those who were abused did not become pedophiles in over 50% of the cases, they didn't provide a specific number. but the point was that killing a children who was abused or discriminating against them like psychologist or doctor who don't want to have anything to do with it, being worried of them becoming pedophiles later on is not only pointless, it's not true.

Why are you relativizing the rape of children? I think I have already made my point pretty clear.
i am not relativizing rape of children, hentai's are doing it. you didn't post when i wrote this. i was bringing up the example of children pornography in which no children was harmed at all. if it doesn't increase rape of children that is. the study i had was about both pornography and child pornography, and they said that in both case incidence of rape decreases. i was personally shocked to hear that ,and it is the only reason i didn't do some kill all the rapist commentary on this thread.

[GreenCommunism]

meh, i should have shut up, i'm losing reputation points, this is lame.

in fact, i am not even in favor of decriminalization of such porn. i simply don't want those who use it without commiting rape being sentenced to longer time in prison than those who abuse children without penetrating them, because even abuse without penetration often causes real lasting consequences. they are vastly underestimated by the criminal courts.

i agree that pornography as a phenomenon is oppressive. but also i don't think 15 to 17 years old should be allowed to do porn or amateur porn either. they are not old enough to really know what they want to do in life. they are too young to commit such mistakes and regret it later on. also it would only be acceptable if people of their age had sex with them. but it is true that pornography is wrong overall. should all of it be outlawed? would that even work? didn't conservative society try this approach before?

and one last thing, since this forum probably has people under 18. i wish this debate would be censored to those under 18. i would agree to delete my posts and continue the debate in private or something similar. oh and in fact i would want all mentions of pedophilia to be banned from tv, since it brings back memories to the victims. this is a bit conservative though. and some ads might be effective in sensibilizing people toward sexual abuse. i think that newspaper shouldn't report it, that's it.

now i am universally suspected of pedophilia, so what was the point of speaking my mind? simply that the identity politic group that i defend are mental illnesses, and i do consider most pedophiles to be part of that group even if i say it isn't a mental illness. alot of them suffered post traumatic stress and they deserves some of my reasonable support. the harm they cause to society is irrelevant, i especially defend psychopaths and pedophiles because they are the most discriminated against group of the mental illness category. nobody does beside they probably are the only one in the world that deserve it, but discrimination never does anything good, never. they need to serve the time according to their crime and be given another chance if the law allows it. that's it. no hate.

[Crux]

meh, i should have shut up, i'm losing reputation points, this is lame.

in fact, i am not even in favor of decriminalization of such porn. i simply don't want those who use it without commiting rape being sentenced to longer time in prison than those who abuse children without penetrating them, because even abuse without penetration often causes real lasting consequences. they are vastly underestimated by the criminal courts.
Sorry for negrepping you, and in this specific point I wouldn't necessarily disagree (in that producers should get higher sentences than viewers), but you are being extremely vague and obtuse in describing how you came to that standpoint, in a to me at least, rather worrying way. Try to be more clear with what you are actually saying, don't throw around numbers unless you are actually using it to back up what you are saying.


i agree that pornography as a phenomenon is oppressive. but also i don't think 15 to 17 years old should be allowed to do porn or amateur porn either. they are not old enough to really know what they want to do in life. they are too young to commit such mistakes and regret it later on. also it would only be acceptable if people of their age had sex with them. but it is true that pornography is wrong overall. should all of it be outlawed? would that even work? didn't conservative society try this approach before?
Well, my point is rather, this is a different issue. It isn't the same as pedophilia. And no mere moralistic legislation to try and stop exploitative pornography, which as I said before primarily reflects an opression in society, perpetuates it, but does not create it, would not work, as moralism ultimately always is hypocrisy. But this is a much broader debate.


and one last thing, since this forum probably has people under 18. i wish this debate would be censored to those under 18. i would agree to delete my posts and continue the debate in private or something similar. oh and in fact i would want all mentions of pedophilia to be banned from tv, since it brings back memories to the victims. this is a bit conservative though. and some ads might be effective in sensibility people toward sexual abuse. i think that newspaper shouldn't report it, that's it.
Dude, no. That would be the moralist approach (although that's not saying legislation can't work), there has to be a discussion on pedophilia, an open discussion, specifically disassociating it from homosexuality and a discussion of the mechanisms of rape in general. A conservative "push it under the rug" approach solves nothing.


now i am universally suspected of pedophilia, so what was the point of speaking my mind? simply that the identity politic group that i defend are mental illnesses, and i do consider most pedophiles to be part of that group even if i say it isn't a mental illness. alot of them suffered post traumatic stress and they deserves some of my reasonable support. the harm they cause to society is irrelevant, i especially defend psychopaths and pedophiles because they are the most discriminated against group of the mental illness category. nobody does beside they probably are the only one in the world that deserve it, but discrimination never does anything good, never. they need to serve the time according to their crime and be given another chance if the law allows it. that's it. no hate.
Defending people with mental illnesses is all good and well, and I am not one of the shoot them all crowd, I very much believe in treatment and rehabilitation, as you may have noticed. I mean, if you would I'd like you to take a look at the posts I made again and try to address some more of my points so I don't have to keep repeating myself, and thanks for being slightly clearer, and I would love if you kept it up in responding to some of the points I tried to make about pedophilia. I could restate them if need be, but I don't want to repeat myself unnecessarily.

[blackwave]

We are, of course, assuming that everyone who looks at child porn is in favour of raping children. I suspect it's a whole lot more complicated than that, no doubt there are people who find rape terrible, and yet look at child porn anyway. Mental confliction, shall we say. Not that I'm saying that makes them innocent, just drawing out some of the more subtle psychological issues. I'm not a paedophile, but I know how powerful my sex drive is, and if it were oriented towards children, I'm not sure how far I'd be able to resist it.

Oh, and with regards to paedophilia being 'unnacceptable', I disagree. If someone is entirely passive, that is to say, they purely fantasise, then no one is ever hurt, and it is thus morally neutral, according to my understanding of morality as a social phenomenon.

[Crux]

We are, of course, assuming that everyone who looks at child porn is in favour of raping children. I suspect it's a whole lot more complicated than that, no doubt there are people who find rape terrible, and yet look at child porn anyway. Mental confliction, shall we say. Not that I'm saying that makes them innocent, just drawing out some of the more subtle psychological issues. I'm not a paedophile, but I know how powerful my sex drive is, and if it were oriented towards children, I'm not sure how far I'd be able to resist it.

Oh, and with regards to paedophilia being 'unnacceptable', I disagree. If someone is entirely passive, that is to say, they purely fantasise, then no one is ever hurt, and it is thus morally neutral, according to my understanding of morality as a social phenomenon.
Sex is politics.

[blackwave]

Pardon, monsieur?

[28350]

Sex is politics.

So then do you condemn sane, safe, and consensual BDSM, in which there is an unequal sexual relationship amongst the partners?

[Crux]

So then do you condemn sane, safe, and consensual BDSM, in which there is an unequal sexual relationship amongst the partners?I think "consensual" is the word you are looking for here. I condemn rape and all patriarchal oppression. And don't pretend patriarchal oppression doesn't exist in the sexual relationships of humans because you are so "liberal and free".

[28350]

So then do you condemn sane, safe, and consensual BDSM, in which there is an unequal sexual relationship amongst the partners?


I think "consensual" is the word you are looking for here. I condemn rape and all patriarchal oppression. And don't pretend patriarchal oppression doesn't exist in the sexual relationships of humans because you are so "liberal and free".

Uh, what?
I condemn rape too. And patriarchal oppression.
And I don't pretend it doesn't exist in "the sexual relationships of humans" (and even still, that's no reason to not have them in the first place).

In case I'm not misunderstanding you and you are in fact responding to my question about BDSM, I think you might be a little confused.
BDSM is, according to wikipedia,

[...] a type of roleplay or lifestyle choice or between two or more individuals who use their experiences of pain and power to create sexual tension, pleasure, and release.
Nowhere in that definition to I find any reference to patriarchal oppression. Plenty of BDSM relationships or encounters involve men being submissive, or don't involve men at all.

If you don't believe me, read this article:

Samois was a lesbian-feminist BDSM organization based in San Francisco and existing from 1978 to 1983 [...]

PS. The way you phrased your last sentence makes it sound as if you don't consider yourself human.

[Crux]

Uh, what?
I condemn rape too. And patriarchal oppression.
And I don't pretend it doesn't exist in "the sexual relationships of humans" (and even still, that's no reason to not have them in the first place).

In case I'm not misunderstanding you and you are in fact responding to my question about BDSM, I think you might be a little confused.
BDSM is, according to wikipedia,

Nowhere in that definition to I find any reference to patriarchal oppression. Plenty of BDSM relationships or encounters involve men being submissive, or don't involve men at all.

If you don't believe me, read this article:


PS. The way you phrased your last sentence makes it sound as if you don't consider yourself human.
And the point is that oppression can exist in any social interaction, including sex, hence my statement "sex is political", fantasies are also political. Having pedophilic attractions is political even more so in consuming it like a commodity. BDSM can of course also be oppressive, but unlike pedophilia, not in itself, because there can be consent. Understand what I am saying now?

[28350]

Yes :)
I agree.

[Crux]

Yes :)
I agree.
That said I don't think the so called "sex positive" stance is necessarily unproblematic, but it's such a vague and misleading concept in the first place and I'd rather not debate my own straw men, really. I think we should try and keep this thread on pedophilia and more specifically the consumption of pedophile pornography which, as follows from my previous statement, is a political act.

[GreenCommunism]

Sorry for negrepping you, and in this specific point I wouldn't necessarily disagree (in that producers should get higher sentences than viewers), but you are being extremely vague and obtuse in describing how you came to that standpoint, in a to me at least, rather worrying way.
it's okay, i knew it was you i thought many people were neg repping me which isn't the case though. sorry for being vague i explained it the best i can. if what you say is true( that producer and consumer are very close) then i guess you are right. but i never heard of a single childporn bust in which the consumer snitched on the producer.



Dude, no. That would be the moralist approach (although that's not saying legislation can't work), there has to be a discussion on pedophilia, an open discussion, specifically disassociating it from homosexuality and a discussion of the mechanisms of rape in general. A conservative "push it under the rug" approach solves nothing.

well i just thought of those under 18 on this website and discussion of such a subject may change their perception of sex or something, i personally never quite understood why schools teach us that masturbation is a natural process yet porn is for those who are 18. i was scared for a minute that they may see this phenomenon in a more positive light due to my argument but that's taking juveniles for dumbasses.

Defending people with mental illnesses is all good and well, and I am not one of the shoot them all crowd, I very much believe in treatment and rehabilitation, as you may have noticed. I mean, if you would I'd like you to take a look at the posts I made again and try to address some more of my points so I don't have to keep repeating myself, and thanks for being slightly clearer, and I would love if you kept it up in responding to some of the points I tried to make about pedophilia. I could restate them if need be, but I don't want to repeat myself unnecessarily.
it's alright, i feel this defuse the discussion which started to get somewhat heated up. i will try to respond to some of your claims but i feel like i may be repeating myself too.i will try to find if i didn't answer some of your claim.

I'm not a paedophile, but I know how powerful my sex drive is, and if it were oriented towards children, I'm not sure how far I'd be able to resist it.
i don't see how that sex drive would be stronger. you aren't a rapist right now and you wouldn't be if your sex drive was orientated toward children. you would simply be depressed that you will never find willing partners.

oh and a last point on the word consensual. i think that no mutual attraction would be a better point. of course children can't consent, but we so often do things against their consent such as giving them a bath whether they like it or not. of course consent is a great deal when it comes to adult, regardless of mutual attraction, but for children they basicly never consent to anything and are ordered to do things all the time, hence why they are vulnerable. with pedophilia they cannot feel sexual attraction to the older one, thus the pleasure is not mutual, thus it is rape. it's a little twisting the issue but i think it is accurate.

well to be honest i don't really feel well when i use that argument, since it was the argument of a pedophile on a philosophy forum, but no mutual attraction was my counter-point.

[#FF0000]

I don't seriously endorse castration for people who view child porn, I should clarify that. However, I fully support it being a punishable offence. Rehabilitation and treatment should be provided in the course of the prison sentence, but this is not a victimless crime and it is ridiculous to portray people who like watching children get raped as victims.

Literally everybody in this thread agrees that they should be rehabilitated but you are taking issue because we aren't all frothing at the mouth about it. That's what I think is happening here.

[GreenCommunism]

i have a question, does sexuality evolve? i mean is it static as in you are most attracted to a certain age group all your life, like 18 ,or does it evolve? aren't teenagers ephebophile? i do think that people want to be with those of their age though.

[#FF0000]

i have a question, does sexuality evolve? i mean is it static as in you are most attracted to a certain age group all your life, like 18 ,or does it evolve? aren't teenagers ephebophile? i do think that people want to be with those of their age though.

well that kind of doesn't matter because we aren't involving teenagers and teenagers. We're talking about adults and children with a large difference in age.

[Saorsa]

Literally everybody in this thread agrees that they should be rehabilitated but you are taking issue because we aren't all frothing at the mouth about it. That's what I think is happening here.

To Froth At The Mouth Is A Holy Principle of Leninism.

J Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, pp49

[mikelepore]

I don't know if these are still on the books, but Clinton-era laws imposed the same prison sentences when no child was involved in the production because the pictures were comic book drawings.

[Vanguard1917]

A person with thousands of images of children being raped saved on their computer is a danger to society, and should be kept separate from society until they change, willingly or not.

Locking people up on the basis of their possession of videos or photographs (of whatever kind), as opposed to a crime that they have actually committed against another person, sets a very dangerous legal precedent. It means that people can be imprisoned not for what they have done, but for what they might do. Would we support imprisonment for, say, a wannabe Jihadist suicide bomber because he has 'thousands of images' of violence against Jews and Christians?

This is not about defending peadophiles (and, yes, you're right: child porn differs fundamentally from other porn in that it by definition involves rape/sexual abuse). It's a matter of realising the negative impact that such knee-jerk populist legislation can have on legal rights in general.

[Crux]

Locking people up on the basis of their possession of videos or photographs (of whatever kind), as opposed to a crime that they have actually committed against another person, sets a very dangerous legal precedent. It means that people can be imprisoned not for what they have done, but for what they might do. Would we support imprisonment for, say, a wannabe Jihadist suicide bomber because he has 'thousands of images' of violence against Jews and Christians?

This is not about defending peadophiles (and, yes, you're right: child porn differs fundamentally from other porn in that it by definition involves rape/sexual abuse). It's a matter of realising the negative impact that such knee-jerk populist legislation can have on legal rights in general.
But the case for medical treatment and rehabilitation could probably not be made as easy. ;)

I am sorry but I don't think anyone as seriously argued any otherwise.

[blake 3:17]

Locking people up on the basis of their possession of videos or photographs (of whatever kind), as opposed to a crime that they have actually committed against another person, sets a very dangerous legal precedent.

It's crazy. What about war porn?

If abuse or assaults happen they should pursued under the laws that govern assault. Part of what makes this is so messed up is that many forms of assault of children by adults are understood as normal and legal, eg spanking. There's also weird stuff like little kids beauty pageants -- I did a couple of quick googles and their sites seem right beside kiddy porn sites. The only quickly observicle difference is that the mothers were included in the former. The lines are really messy and a lot of legal experts recognize this.

There were three big cases in Canada that were very clearly repressive, and didn't have one thing to do with protecting children.

The far right current head of the Ontario Provincial Police, when he was Chief of Police for London, Ontario, created a camapign called Project Guardian. A number of young hustlers got busted for videoing each other jerking off, and then were flipped to go after middle aged johns. There's a bit on it here: http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Julian_Fantino_hawks_new_book-4018.aspx

I know one person who went through hell being accused of being a child pornographer because of the drawings he had done. His art show was siezed by police, based on complaints made by people who read a review of the show. No child was actually involved in any of it. Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Langer

The other big case in Canada was the Robin Sharpe case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sharpe

I took a look through the entries and some of the links and they seem relatively accurate.


But the case for medical treatment and rehabilitation could probably not be made as easy.

Here's a link to a more thoughtful column by Dan Savage, the American sex advice columnist. There's a letter from an admitted pedophile, who has resisted temptation and would like help. Where? How? Link: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=3347526

I wish there were easy answers to eliminating child abuse.

[blake 3:17]

Sorry for the double post, but this Weinstein seems alright.






The jurist sided Thursday with a city teacher who was suspended after she let eighth-graders use vulgar sex terms during a lesson on AIDS.

Weinstein said there's no regulation against the way Faith Kramer (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Faith+Kramer) taught the lesson - which involved words like "hooters," "wiener" and others less printable.

"If the [Education Department] wants its teachers to instruct adolescents about HIV using Latinism of the academy, excluding vulgarism of the street, it should tell them so," he wrote.

City lawyers seemed stunned by his ruling - which green-lighted a $2 million suit by Kramer - listing several of the more explicit terms in a statement.

"The words are entirely inappropriate," senior counsel Blanche Greenfield (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Blanche+Greenfield) said.

"Their use in a classroom reflects unacceptable and extremely poor judgment by the teacher and is plainly not consistent with community values."

In the 2007 lesson, Kramer asked students at Intermediate School 72 on Staten Island (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Staten+Island) to write down words they used when speaking about sex.
The results was a long list of slang terms, like banana and taco, jugs and family jewels. Some were obscure; a few were in Yiddish.

Parents complained and Kramer was booted from the classroom for eight months and denied a satisfactory rating while educrats investigated.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/05/21/2010-05-21_sex_slang_upheld_in_hiv_lesson_judge_sez_teach_ allowed_to_let_kids_use_own_words.html#ixzz0pUAOZj Q7 (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/05/21/2010-05-21_sex_slang_upheld_in_hiv_lesson_judge_sez_teach_ allowed_to_let_kids_use_own_words.html#ixzz0pUAOZj Q7)


Sounds like she was doing a good job.

[GreenCommunism]

The other big case in Canada was the Robin Sharpe case
was this guy really relaxed because kiddie porn was his freedom of expression? is you fucking with me? :laugh:

something else, why can't those people find porn that isn't porn? like kids with clothes on. though i guess if there is clear sexual intent it is child porn.

[GreenCommunism]

Sounds like she was doing a good job.

i think it is ridiculous. first to sue her and second to get a list of sexual terms from her student. the scientific term are not that dull or something. i can imagine a whole class of immature teenagers laughing because the teacher said wiener. at the same time it isn't like those are slurs or so. but i don't see the point in teaching sexuality.

[blackwave]

I'd be surprised if there were child pornography available for free. Its rightly illegal, so much so that a lot of other crooks won't touch it. Given the risks involved in disseminating it, those who do would want to be well compensated. That said, it does seam wrong that there are higher sentences for owning rather than making.

With the invention of anonymous networks, this stuff is now available to everyone for free by the bucketload, which makes it extremely difficult to both control and prosecute.

[blackwave]

was this guy really relaxed because kiddie porn was his freedom of expression? is you fucking with me? :laugh:

something else, why can't those people find porn that isn't porn? like kids with clothes on. though i guess if there is clear sexual intent it is child porn.

I know there has been debate over the legal status of 'child modelling', stuff which shows kids fully clothed but in sexually suggestive poses. I think in the UK at least you can get in trouble for possessing this stuff, though I somehow don't see prosecution as very likely.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for you all. Pictures of dead bodies are legal to possess, as far as I know. If I have a collection of pictures of the corpses of murder victims which I masturbate over, am I encouraging murder? Again, not trying to excuse anyone, just trying to bring out the moral complexities of the issue.

[28350]

Here's an interesting thought experiment for you all. Pictures of dead bodies are legal to possess, as far as I know. If I have a collection of pictures of the corpses of murder victims which I masturbate over, am I encouraging murder? Again, not trying to excuse anyone, just trying to bring out the moral complexities of the issue.

Unless you're somehow financially or politically supporting murder, no, you are not. There are plenty of public sites that specialize in shock images which include pictures of corpses.

[GreenCommunism]

If I have a collection of pictures of the corpses of murder victims which I masturbate over, am I encouraging murder?

lol, necrophilia maybe.

[Comrade Cat]

"Two older girls - Eefje Lambrecks, 19, and An Marchal, 17 - were kidnapped in Flanders and killed in 1996. They were buried alive. Their corpses were unearthed with the body of Dutroux's associate, Bernard Weinstein. Dutroux denied murdering all three of them."

relatives, maybe?...anyway, it seems that child pornographers lobby is very strong in the US..

[Adi Shankara]

God this is embarassing--why does Revleft always run to the defense of pederasts and pedophiles, or those trying to make it easier to be a pedophile?

it's not an issue of morality; it's an issue of that it's been a proven correlation that children who have been sexually abused when they're younger have mental illnesses or emotional disturbances at much much higher rates.

seriously, anyone of you who think it's a good idea to support pedophilia or pedophiles--go fuck yourself.

and if you think it's leftist to want to unban child porn--how does the legalization of the exploitation of children for a profit somehow make one "revolutionary"?

[ZeroNowhere]

It would be preferable if you quoted the people supporting pedophilia and then told them to go and fuck themselves. Although it seems that you take issue with child rape more than just pedophilia.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Shut the fuck up Sankara, seriously. You just had to go and dig this thread up to spew your wilful misunderstandings as well, didn't you?

No one has argued for that it should be acceptable to make money off the sexual abuse of others, or that somehow sexual abuse is acceptable. You clearly lack the ability to comprehend what you read, or you wilfully neglect this ability, when it comes to threads like this and the one you made.

[Glenn Beck]

God this is embarassing--why does Revleft always run to the defense of pederasts and pedophiles, or those trying to make it easier to be a pedophile?

it's not an issue of morality; it's an issue of that it's been a proven correlation that children who have been sexually abused when they're younger have mental illnesses or emotional disturbances at much much higher rates.

seriously, anyone of you who think it's a good idea to support pedophilia or pedophiles--go fuck yourself.

and if you think it's leftist to want to unban child porn--how does the legalization of the exploitation of children for a profit somehow make one "revolutionary"?

I recall an old thread where some people advocated decriminalizing child porn with the rationale that since its already been produced the damage is done and pedophiles need an outlet to wank to. Somebody had to point out that the victims are still around and have to deal with images of their trauma being traded on the internet. :rolleyes:

[Adi Shankara]

I recall an old thread where some people advocated decriminalizing child porn with the rationale that since its already been produced the damage is done and pedophiles need an outlet to wank to. Somebody had to point out that the victims are still around and have to deal with images of their trauma being traded on the internet. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I saw all those threads--it's like those types of racists like David Duke, who will do everything he can to defame black people, but won't say outright that they are inferior or use any racial slurs.

Instead, these supporters of pedophiles will do everything except outright defense of pedophilia. it's no different. if it quacks like a duck...

[Adi Shankara]

Shut the fuck up Sankara, seriously. You just had to go and dig this thread up to spew your wilful misunderstandings as well, didn't you?

No one has argued for that it should be acceptable to make money off the sexual abuse of others, or that somehow sexual abuse is acceptable. You clearly lack the ability to comprehend what you read, or you wilfully neglect this ability, when it comes to threads like this and the one you made.

no. but people are making apologist defenses for inexcusable behavior, and crying out against the rightful discrimination against pedophiles. call it what you will, that's what I see alot in this thread and the other.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

no. but people are making apologist defenses for inexcusable behavior, and crying out against the rightful discrimination against pedophiles. call it what you will, that's what I see alot in this thread and the other.

Then why do you say they are saying that, why keep putting words in their mouths?

This sort of emotional knee-jerk response is reactionary. An intelligent approach must be taken to improve the situation. Yelling about castration and hangings won't get anywhere near solving a difficult and complex issue like child abuse. It's not an easy issue with a solution set in stone.

[Adi Shankara]

Then why do you say they are saying that, why keep putting words in their mouths?

I'm not. I have links to post after post where apologists are making excuses for such behavior.


This sort of emotional knee-jerk response is reactionary.

oh shut up.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I'm not. I have links to post after post where apologists are making excuses for such behavior.

Post them then.


oh shut up.

Didn't really refute the point there did you, kinda just backed it up?

[#FF0000]

I'm not. I have links to post after post where apologists are making excuses for such behavior.

No one is making excuses for their behavior you fucking idiot. We are saying that pedophiles should be dealt with in a way other than execution or castration. You know, like something humane and not barbaric, cruel and unusual.

[Coggeh]

I'm not. I have links to post after post where apologists are making excuses for such behavior.



oh shut up.

Look man, take it easy for Christ sake. No one is defending child abuse or whatever else. Its not about that. Just take a breath and read someones post and respond with your point of view in a rational manner so this thread doesn't get locked

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

And I apologise to Alastair for forgetting how important it is to indefinitely lock up criminals - many of them in their situation due to mental illness or socio-economic realities - or kill them outright instead of attempting to rehabilitate them so they can function in society without being a danger. Because we know how well your method is working in the US.

I don't think any of us have any misplaced affection for people who download child pornography (and I certainly have my own strong disdain for criminals in general), we're just level headed individuals who don't get themselves riled up on the internet at every opportunity about whatever moral injustice is occurring and call for shootings to happen like some 60 year old men watching Today Tonight.
There are things to consider, such as mental illness and socio-economic conditions, and these things do create a separate question in themselves. However, on an individual basis, people can not be let away with such crimes against the innocence of a child, or the consent and dignity of any person, because we understand their conditions. We understand that the bourgeoisie exploit our class because of the conditions that exist for that to happen, but that does not mean we intend to not punish them for their crimes when the chance arises.

If someone were to rape another person, we would analyse the kind of conditions in which this situation arose and come to anti-capitalist conclusions every time, more or less. This does not mean that the person who committed this disgusting act should get away with it - it is not our job to sympathize with people who do such terrible things on a personal basis, but we must analyse crime on a class basis. The reason we cannot sympathize on a personal basis is due to the fact that their crime has violated another person's body, and this in turn leaves even more terrible conditions for the victim, that can potentially ruin their life. The task we face is addressing the conditions that breed such criminals and dealing with them in a revolutionary, well-thought manner. However, we must also address the conditions of the actual crime, that have terrible connotations for the victim, and this must also be dealt with in a revolutionary manner.

On the subject of child pornography itself; is it wrong for someone to own pictures of innocent children being abused? Yes it is, there are no two ways about the fact that it is wrong for someone to own pictures of children being abused. Whilst we must take into consideration that an owner of these images may have mental problems that must be addressed, we must also use whatever conclusion from a trial to ensure that this person learns how wrong this is and learns that any form of sex beyond consent cannot be tolerated, whether it is between adults or adults and children. They may not be the root of the problem, but they are part of the problem, and this is something that we cannot forget. It is in no way reactionary or over-emotive to want to punish those involved in the world of child sex abuse; it is natural.

[Adi Shankara]

No one is making excuses for their behavior you fucking idiot. We are saying that pedophiles should be dealt with in a way other than execution or castration. You know, like something humane and not barbaric, cruel and unusual.

except for the outburst in name calling, I agree. if there is a pedophile who hasn't already molested a kid who wishes to seek help, then he/she should be granted amnesty.

if he/she has already though, I don't see why the book shouldn't be thrown at them.

[#FF0000]

if he/she has already though, I don't see why the book shouldn't be thrown at them.
Nobody is saying it shouldn't. If they have abused a child, they go to prison. That simple.

[meow]

two things i want to comment on.

"porn" that does not involve real people (drawings or computer art for example) can not hurt anyone. there should be no consequences for having such.
warning child porn: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Simpsons-sex-comic.GIF
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:The_Simpsons_Family_Moment.jpg
those pictures will get you in shit in some places. i suspect they were drawn to amuse rather then excite. but what would i know? people like all strange things.

otehr thing i wanted to say no one supports rape or non consent sex let alone the filming of it.

[stella2010]

jail according to common law.

Repeat offence deserves the firing squad.

Bring back the firing squad. AMEN

[Coggeh]

two things i want to comment on.

"porn" that does not involve real people (drawings or computer art for example) can not hurt anyone. there should be no consequences for having such.
warning child porn: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Simpsons-sex-comic.GIF
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:The_Simpsons_Family_Moment.jpg
those pictures will get you in shit in some places. i suspect they were drawn to amuse rather then excite. but what would i know? people like all strange things.

otehr thing i wanted to say no one supports rape or non consent sex let alone the filming of it.
Yeah i heard that some guy got arrested in Austrailia for having them images on their computer what a joke like. Its the god damn simpsons like

[Coggeh]

Nobody is saying it shouldn't. If they have abused a child, they go to prison. That simple.

Shouldn't they be sent to a mental hospital. Sending a paedophile to a prison is giving them a death sentence.

[Adi Shankara]

Shouldn't they be sent to a mental hospital. Sending a paedophile to a prison is giving them a death sentence.

but didn't they make that choice to go to prison when they sexually abused a child?

[meow]

but didn't they make that choice to go to prison when they sexually abused a child?
i didnt make choice to got to jail when i stole bread to feed my starving family.

i didnt make choice to get pregnant when i had unprotected sex.

i didnt make choice when i got raped for go in dark wearing nice clothing.

people dont choose to go to prison when they do crime. they dont think about it. prison doesnt stop crime. punishment doesnt stop crime.

only thing punishment does is make other people feel good they got vengence. vengence though is wrong. punishment is wrong. saveges punish. leftists rehabilitate.

if you support people who commit sexual assult getting killed in prison i guess you also support prison rape? after all if you not want to get raped, you should not have committed crime. right? even if you didnt kill anyone but were framed. you shouldnt let yourself get framed. etc.

(yes i know the 3 things i say at start are not the same as sexually abuse child. the point is the criminal doesnt choice punshment. no one choice negative consquences.)

[Adi Shankara]

i didnt make choice to got to jail when i stole bread to feed my starving family.

are you really going to compare getting sent to prison for stealing bread to sustain the life of others with that of a sexual pervert who would rape a young child for his/her own pleasure?

[meow]

are you really going to compare getting sent to prison for stealing bread to sustain the life of others with that of a sexual pervert who would rape a young child for his/her own pleasure?
no.

(yes i know the 3 things i say at start are not the same as sexually abuse child. the point is the criminal doesnt choice punshment. no one choice negative consquences.)

[Blackscare]

I'd be surprised if there were child pornography available for free. Its rightly illegal, so much so that a lot of other crooks won't touch it. Given the risks involved in disseminating it, those who do would want to be well compensated. That said, it does seam wrong that there are higher sentences for owning rather than making.


You must have never been to /b/.

[blake 3:17]

A thoughtful article from Canada's national newspaper about the age of consent laws which were passed a couple of years ago: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article683868.ece

They were a Tory initiative which our social democrats supported -- very much against the advice of progressive sex educators.

I'd suggest to all on this thread to go back to the OP. Weinstein's sentencing is an interesting one, and perhaps the fairest possible.

The biggest problem I see with the laws is how arbitrarily they are enforced or how they will be enforced. Arbitrary laws, and arbitrary enforcement of laws, is very bad for justice.

[L.A.P.]

I don't feel very comfortable with the idea that we should be okay with people jacking off while watching videos of young children being raped. Just my take on it.

[PhoenixAsh]

necrophilia...

Now we are on the subject...speaking about necrophilia...how are your views on reviving long dead threads...;)

But In agree with you on the other part completely.

[eric922]

I don't think prison will fix this problem. Is child porn a good thing? No! However prison should be reserved for those who knowingly and willingly commit crimes that harm others. In the case of those who look at child porn, i feel that counseling and mental health treatment are the best course.
I am not sure why people have attractions to children, though I suppose one could argue it is an evolutionary thing simply because people used to have children and be considered adults as young as 12. And for those who suggest castration, that seems to be a very very reactionary thing to do? Shouldn't we instead focus on understanding and trying to help such people?

[PhoenixAsh]

Castration does not help the desire go away....nor do I think such deep desires will be always "curable"

Child porn is a broad term. It involves actual sexual abuse and rape but it also involves pictures of naked children in a sexual oriented way....in some countries it even involves drawings of children naked or sex acts with children.

[L.A.P.]

Castration does not help the desire go away....nor do I think such deep desires will be always "curable"

Child porn is a broad term. It involves actual sexual abuse and rape but it also involves pictures of naked children in a sexual oriented way....in some countries it even involves drawings of children naked or sex acts with children.

Well let's just make it clear that a 15 year old sending a sexually suggestive picture to a 40 year old is really not that big of a deal (although I would be personally opposed to it) because by that age they're educated enough to make a conscious decision on what they do in regards to sex, and there's a lot worse things in life. When i speak of child porn, I'm speaking of when a child not educated enough to make a conscious decision to consent is being sexually exploited by someone else.

[PhoenixAsh]

everything has its slopes.

[blake 3:17]

everything has its slopes.

Absolutely. Did you see the OP and first part of discussion? The judge seems really on the ball.

[gorillafuck]

Revleft: where we can stand stauchly against promiscuous sex as objectifying, but sympathize with the collecting of child porn.

Honestly, yeah he shouldn't go to prison for five years. But he should definitely have an ankle bracelet to monitor where he is and be under very strict supervision, and have very extensive therapy in a rehabilitation facility.

Edit: Oh, this is quite an old thread.

[Jose Gracchus]

It's worth noting that there is a difference between someone stumbling across child porn on 4chan, watching a video or two out of some twisted, fucked up curiosity... and someone stockpiling enormous amounts of it. That indicates that the desire to rape children is deeply rooted in this person's personality and that they see their behaviour as at least partially acceptable.

A person with thousands of images of children being raped saved on their computer is a danger to society, and should be kept separate from society until they change, willingly or not.

Can you provide a single shred of evidence that these assertions are true, taken over the group of child pornography offenders, statistically?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The law needs to make distinction between those who perpetrate the violent acts that are photographed/video'd, that are the origin of 'child pornography'. Clearly, engaging in a sexual act with a pre-pubescent child is rape and should be dealt with as such.

However, it does not follow that the logical progression from viewing child pornography is to become a child molester. It can happen, and in some cases it does, but that should be dealt with as a separate offence.

Then there is also the economic reality that in no way does viewing child pornography stimulate demand for it, since infonomics dictates that infinite copies can be created and thus normal supply-demand laws go out the window. This argument can be applied to copyrighted material of any kind that is currently banned from being distributed online.

In the case of child pornography, it is firmly a case of cutting off the head of the snake. I find it is slightly silly to waste time going after those who are viewing/downloading pornography, since cutting off the 'demand' aspect of this equation will not really stop child molesters from perpetrating whatever disgusting acts they want to perpetrate. Go after the child molesters and come down on them hard, and then there will be no child pornography to be viewed/downloaded.