Possession of child porn should not be illegal

[Kevin]

Site members and readers.

This posting is on this site per Nick Coons. Mr. Coons is a self announced Libertarian candidate for Arizona District 5 Congressman. http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com

On the Arizona LP list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpaz-discuss ) I engaged Mr. Coons on the subject of a man getting an 18 year sentence for the possession of child pornography. That site being closed to the public I put to Mr. Coons that Libertarians were "mushroom people", that they had to keep their views hidden from the voting public. Mr. Coons agreed to publicly debate his view that possession of child pornography should not be illegal. I felt that children being a main subject on this site and his being endorsed by CustodialGranparent's this was the appropriate place and he agreed.

Because there is a size limitation on posting the quotation of his postings must be made over several thread replies.

=============================================
Coons first posting.

Re: [lpaz-discuss] 18 years in jail for having dirty pictures?
Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:00 pm
From nick@... Fri Dec 12 16:00:41 2008

>> 18 years in jail for having dirty pictures? That sounds a bit
draconian to
>> me!!!!

> 18 years seems a bit draconian for being part of the rape and
> molestation of children to you? You are one sick puppy.

What does "being part of" mean? Unless he raped or molested children,
then he shouldn't be liable for the rape and molestation of children.
People should be held responsible for the consequences of their own
actions, not for the actions of others.

If I patronize a restaurant that takes the money I paid them and buys
drugs, am I "being part of" a drug transaction for which I should be
prosecuted?

------------------------------------------------------------

Coons second posting

Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:37 pm
From nick@... Fri Dec 12 20:37:42 2008
Re: [lpaz-discuss] 18 years in jail for having dirty pictures?

> I hear these questions from Libertarians all the time, part of their
> inability to think beyond the first layer.

> IF you intentionally buy stolen goods you are part of the theft in
> that you are intentionally the market for the stolen goods. This
> makes you a participant in the crime even though you may not have
> known in advance, or after the fact, who would be robbed you. By
> intintionaly being the market for the stolen goods you become a part
> of the chain, an accessory, of the crime.

This isn't an inability of Libertarians or myself, I just disagree with
your logic concluding guilt, because it puts a burden on to someone
(someone purchasing photos) who has infringed on the rights of no one.

> As for your restaurant example you are unaware of the intent to
> commit an illegal act. Even if you knew the owners of the restaurant
> were buying drugs you could not know that the profit from the meal
> you paid for would be specifically used for a crime. The action of
> buying the meal by itself is an entirely legal action.

"Legal and illegal" are not the question here, because the illegality of
the action is clear. The question is here is what ought to be illegal.
What ought to be illegal is an action that infringes on the rights of
others. Purchasing photos infringes on no one's rights, no matter how
those photos were acquired. To argue otherwise is to admit no
philosophical basis for what is and is not a crime, but instead making
undesirable activities arbitrarily illegal, whoever defines "undesirable".

The fact remains that purchasing and owning photos of any nature is
victimless. The method used to acquire the photos (presumably raping
and molesting children, as you've mentioned) is an initiation of force
and should be entirely illegal.

> These things are not hard to understand or figure out, unless you do
> not want to understand.

Please, enough with the personal attacks. I'm happy to debate issues..
let's leave it at that.[hr]
Coons third and final quoted original postings.

From nick@... Sat Dec 13 07:50:11 2008
Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:49 am
Reply | Forward Message #51415 of 51618 < Prev | Next >
Re: [lpaz-discuss] 18 years in jail for having dirty pictures?

>> This isn't an inability of Libertarians or myself, I just disagree with
>> your logic concluding guilt, because it puts a burden on to someone
>> (someone purchasing photos) who has infringed on the rights of no one.

> That is so sick and so wrong to say that "puts a burden on to someone
> (someone purchasing photos) who has infringed on the rights of no one".

> We are not talking abut some generic photos, we are talking child
> pornography. This has infringed upon the rights of the children and
> beyond right participated in the crimes of rape and child molestation.

What is sick and wrong is raping and molesting children. Purchasing and
owning photos, no matter the content of the photos, while perhaps having
ethical implications. is not an infringement on anyone's rights.

Purchasing of child pornography photos does not infringe on the rights
of anyone. *Creating* child pornography photos infringes on the rights
of children. *That* is where the focus of the crime should be placed,
because the ones that have created the child pornography are the criminals.

> You are using your 2010 Congressional campaign e-mail account for this.
> Your campaign website shows you have an endorsement from
> _http://custodialgrandparents.com/_. This site has an open forum.

> So lets take this discussion from a closed list to the open to the public
> forums at custodialgrandparents.com. After all, your public and the
> people who have endorsed you should hear about your views. They need to
> know what it is they are voting for which is a very Libertarian concept.

> If you have the courage top speak your convictions then you believe in
> them, you lack the courage to debate this publicly them you lack the
> convictions you claim here to have.

> You have to be a very busy fellow so how about this: invite me to post your
> responses here to custodialgrandparents.com.

> Personally I have referred to Libertarians as Mushroom People, they can
> only exist in the dark. My bet is you are going to slink into a basement
> and hide.

You can repost anything that I've said, so long as it's not taken out of
context. It may be best to repost my messages in their entirety; I'm
perfectly fine with that. If you want to start a thread over there,
send me the link once the thread is up, and I would be happy to defend
my position on that forum.

Speaking of slinking, only existing in the dark, etc, I believe Jim
Iannuzo has invited you to call in to our radio program
(http://www.libertariansolution.com) on more than one occasion for a
debate. Hosting a live radio show, that takes calls, and does nothing
but spread libertarian ideas seems like an odd way to live in a basement.

[audra sonata]

While I disagree with Mr Coons' stance, I understand it. Our tendency to prosecute the owners of child pornography and ignore those creating it seems backwards to me.

What concerns me, and didn't seem to be addressed in the debate above at all is the startling statistics directly showing child pornography as a causal factor in the increase in child molest and rape in our country. If we're to truly host such a debate wherein someone is attempting to either influence Mr. Coons stance or "out" him as "Kevin" appears to be attempting to do, I would have expected the following information to have been included.

Studies conducted by various organizations have shown that pornography is extremely influential in the actions of sex offenders and serial murders. Further, statistics show that 90 percent of the predators who molest children have had some type of involvement with pornography. According to research, 77% of child molesters of boys and 87% of child molesters of girls admitted imitating the sexual behaviour they had seen in pornography they had watched. Roughly 33% of girls and 14% of boys are molested before the age of 18, according to various state departments. We Note that 29% of victims of rape are less than 11 years old, another 32% between 11 and 17, and rape has risen 523% since 1960.

As a mother and grandmother, attempting to protect my children and yes, voting accordingly, this is the information I would like to see addressed.

[Kevin]

Audra,
.
Per Mr. Coons request anything of his I posted here he wanted a full quotation of his posting, no taking out of context or interpretation on my part. So you see the debate as it progressed to date without any embellishment. Mr. Coons campaign for Congress is endorsed by this site or at least his campaign website says so. There is also a Coons For Congress link on the opening page of this website. By mutual agreement between Mr. Coons and myself this would be a good place for public debate of our differences.

One of Mr. Coons paragraphs reads "Purchasing of child pornography photos does not infringe on the rights
of anyone. *Creating* child pornography photos infringes on the rights
of children. *That* is where the focus of the crime should be placed,
because the ones that have created the child pornography are the criminals."
So there is no debate or disagreement of child molestation as a crime.

My take on this is that the holder of child pornography is part of the chain of the guilty in the molestation of these children. Specifically the act of photographing / videoing them for distribution. If the holders of child porn did not accept / trade or purchase the pornography this part of the crime would not be committed. While a child molester may take images of their acts as trophies, often for later masturbation, this involves tha crime of documenting the molestation for a later profit. The profit can be simply selling the images for money or trading them to other pedophiles for more images.

I hold the act of possession of child pornography is currently a crime and should stay that was. Mr. Coons who is a candidate for Congress where such legislation is enacted or revoked holds that possession of child pornography should not be a crime. All I can do is talk about my views, Mr. Coons is seeking votes to gain a position of power to implement his views.

[Admin]

I not only agree with Audra on those statistics and their importance, however the following is NOT the least bit true
This posting is on this site per Nick Coons. Mr. Coons is a self announced Libertarian candidate for Arizona District 5 Congressman. http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com I contacted Mr. Coons and was alerted to the fact this debate had been going on else where, and that this is an assault against Nick Coons, as an attempt to mar his reputation, as well as general flaming of the Libertarian party, and that he did NOT encourage Kevin to bring this here, however it is something all parents should be aware of, and custodial grandparents are raising children, so I will allow this debate if all participants agree to discuss ONLY the subject of the debate, and not sling accusations, or twist and distort the facts to suit their purposes, and does not attack the whole part Nick represents here, and that by doing so will get them temporarily banned, and continuing to do so after that will get them permanently banned, along with their IP address, and if need be, reported to their ISP, with this being perfectly clear this debate may continue!.

With that said....there are points from both sides that I feel are missing a number of points, along with the ones Audra pointed out.
I do agree that 18 years in jail for dirty pictures, despite their nature, is overkill, however I do not feel that this is at all acceptable, only that the sentence is better suited to the perpetrators of creating them, rather than some guy who trips over them while perusing porn sites on the net, Hell I have had such pictures sent to my mail box as spam and we get tons of them here with the illegality of it in the subject title stating 12yo or 15 yo does------, and thankfully our spam filters protects you all from such posts, and i am working on stopping the emails coming to me through this site.

Now as for who are the guilty parties? While I agree with the aspect that just because someone has such pictures doesn't mean he was responsible for their being taken, but ultimately my feeling is, this falls under that category of what any other black market enterprise does....if there wasn't a market for it, meaning no one bought or wanted it, it would likely not be something someone would pursue to do. So if someone downloads or buys these types of pictures, they are "creating" the market for others to want to capitalize on, and it seems no one has any consideration for the subjects in them. Do you people who find this entertaining or a turn on even "REALIZE" these subjects are not posing voluntarily? That they are likely either being exploited, and abused, and possibly fear for their life if they do not do what they are told to do, and other cases might include parental or familial offenders that have "groomed" their niece, nephew, son, or daughter that this is ok, because daddy or mommy says so, even if they are not comfortable doing so because of what they learn in bible studies, or school?

The point is, even though 18 years is overkill, as Nick stated for their possession, there should be strict laws and penalties for perpetuating a market that will encourage more people to think this is alright, when it is absolutely not acceptable under ANY circumstances...period!

This goes for numerous other types of personal and human rights violations, that would likely be almost completely eliminated if there were no people to purchase or request such atrocities, so in essence they ARE as guilty as those doing it. Because if not for them, there would be little reason TO do it, and therefore should be looked at on a case by case basis, where one person has such content on their hard drive, that can be proved to have been unsolicited and sent to them, and they failed to delete and or report (have you ever tried reporting something like this, I have and it is damn near impossible, and even when you do so successfully, you get no response to know any officials are even investigating your claim) the incidence, as opposed to someone who either intentionally searched and downloaded, or purchased, this kind of content, and as such, being sentenced to the highest degree the law allows. So it should not be a blanket response for all, and in that sense I can agree with Nick's statement, but ultimately, if everyone took a stand to the point that this will be refused by all, on every level, then there will be no cause for anyone to do this to children, let alone seek them out and force or coerce them in to such inappropriate activities!

So in this respect I can in fact see where such an activity of seeking, procuring/purchasing such photos "DOES" in fact infringe on those children's rights, as well as the fact that it IS illegal TO possess, in any form, any sexual or nude "photography" not images or illustration or paintings. these may be distasteful, but they are legitimate manners of "art", not infringing on anyone's rights, provided no subject was used a a model, but photos and videos, these are not forms of art, they are only in existence because someone can make money from them, because it obviously satisfies some sick people's fantasy or perverted need, but because this has been around for so long, I often wonder how many people would ever even realize this desire, if they were never exposed to them or the idea of it in the first place.
On another subject of similar proportions, would you not consider the people who purchase snuff films any less responsible for the torture and murder of the subject in the video? Should not anyone owning a snuff video be held, and prosecuted as an accomplice, or for murder by proxy.
The person instigating a proxy murder may or may not be legally guilty of the crime of murder,, this legal distinction varies by state. However, all jurisdictions recognize the criminal nature of the actions taken by the instigator, and they may be charged under any of a variety of statutes, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and/or accessory to murder.

Well then wouldn't viewing child porn of any nature or media, be considered an accomplice, or doing an insidious act through proxy, and therefore be charged for instigating, even if indirectly, the violations to the child subjects in these medias, be it photos or videos? Therefore, although they should not be punished to the extent that actuator is, the penalties should be proportional to the involvement or degree a specific person is found to posses, and the manner of which it was acquired.
For instance if a person was found to have a limited degree of porn on their computer, and of that, there were just a few, and rather inconspicuous, photos of minors, and these were sent through an auto subscription for which they have little control as to what is sent, they should not be treated equally with someone who has paid specifically for obvious cases of adolescent teens well below the legal age, and along with the heading or titles promoting the nature of their being under 15 or being 11 or 12 year olds, and pays to get these. Then this person is obviously a responsible party through proxy, for the actions taken to create these photos or videos, and should in fact be prosecuted as such, but still may not warrant the fullest extent of the law, since it was in fact an indirect involvement, and he didn't specifically pay someone to go and find some kids to take these pictures of, but only responded to the offer of their being available, and the person(s) who directly conducted the action of using and exploiting these children, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law AND pay retribution AND punitive damages for as long as that, or those children exploited need, whatever it takes to help them revert to normal children again, unburdened with the traumas, or misconceptions they were fed to get them to perform, and rehabilitate their thought processes to relieve them of their guilt, fear, trauma, and mental anguish for what they had done, as well as re-educate them in what is considered to be within normal boundaries of respect of humans civil rights, and despite all of this, most of those saved from this, will likely never be who they otherwise would have, if not for this violation and exploitation of them, and will likely have either numerous sexual inhibitions when they are mature enough to actually be sexually active with a partner, or have off center tangent desires, based on their experiences and those actions they were forced to do, because people's minds can deal with things many different ways, and some of these children may have perverted or kinky desires for sexual acts that they normally would never have been exposed to, as well as a much earlier in life, desire to seek out another to experiment more on the things they may have found, over time, in their experience, to have given them some kind of pleasure, and end up at 15 or 16 and pregnant, or 18 - 20 years old and skipping college because they found they can make tons of money performing such acts for money.

Bottom line, despite everything that can be done, these children will never be who they once were slated to be, and nothing can change that, and it is only because there is someone willing to pay to have such acts put on film for their warped pleasure, with no regards for the consequences to the subjects of their own actions, by capitulating to those who would showcase these exploited children for financial gain, they are in fact perpetuating and increasing the incidence of it's occurrence, and although I can agree that 18 years is overkill for the objective inadvertent possessor of this material, it is NOT overkill for those who have sought to procure such material, and for them, NO, 18 years is not enough for them to have had these dirty pictures!!!!

Admin!

[Admin]

Audra,
.
Per Mr. Coons request anything of his I posted here he wanted a full quotation of his posting, no taking out of context or interpretation on my part. So you see the debate as it progressed to date without any embellishment. Mr. Coons campaign for Congress is endorsed by this site or at least his campaign website says so. There is also a Coons For Congress link on the opening page of this website. By mutual agreement between Mr. Coons and myself this would be a good place for public debate of our differences.

One of Mr. Coons paragraphs reads "Purchasing of child pornography photos does not infringe on the rights
of anyone. *Creating* child pornography photos infringes on the rights
of children. *That* is where the focus of the crime should be placed,
because the ones that have created the child pornography are the criminals."
So there is no debate or disagreement of child molestation as a crime.

My take on this is that the holder of child pornography is part of the chain of the guilty in the molestation of these children. Specifically the act of photographing / videoing them for distribution. If the holders of child porn did not accept / trade or purchase the pornography this part of the crime would not be committed. While a child molester may take images of their acts as trophies, often for later masturbation, this involves tha crime of documenting the molestation for a later profit. The profit can be simply selling the images for money or trading them to other pedophiles for more images.

I hold the act of possession of child pornography is currently a crime and should stay that was. Mr. Coons who is a candidate for Congress where such legislation is enacted or revoked holds that possession of child pornography should not be a crime. All I can do is talk about my views, Mr. Coons is seeking votes to gain a position of power to implement his views.


I do not see it that way at all Kevin.

First off I own this forum and I can have links to whomever I wish to, and the reason FOR my supporting Nick in this manner, is because of the tremendous help he has, and continues to offer, for the well being of the children being raised by their grandparents here, and how, and what they can do to change how each state views these people they tend to sometimes "dump" these children on, to get out of the financial burden it creates within that state's foster care systems, as well as those states who do not recognize these literal "HEROES" for what they do, and the service they perform, I would ask you to read through as many of the posts on this forum and you can, so you understand what it is that happens, and what these wonderful people sacrifice for the children, and get no rights, recognition, or funding, let alone holding biological parents in any way responsible, for financial support assistance, and force them to comply with court ordered processes such as drug rehab, and staying clean for a stated period, or allowing a detached uninvolved mother, to swoop in and snatch their baby at the first note of hearing of her partner's untimely death, for nothing more than the SS survivor benefits, to further fund her drug usage with no care or consideration for her baby, or those who had been caring for it since birth!

I have also known Nick for quite sometime, and have read much of what he posts, even though I am not politically inclined, I do know that he, in no way, campaigns on those forums he belongs to, but merely enjoys debating, and probably uses the exercises to hone his debating skills.
He NEVER not once stepped over the line, despite other trolls whose only intent was to try to trip him in to being something he is not, by making similar accusations and others, just because Nick disagreed with the "point of view" and not the person posting it!

So you may debate this, but ONLY the subject, not the poster!

Please carry yourself with dignity and respect and all will be fine!

By the way I tend to more agree with what you mentioned as far as liability goes when it comes to such things, as you should gather from my previous post!

Admin!

[audra sonata]

I find that, like you and admin, I agree the holding of child pornography should be a crime, but, like Nick, I do not agree to the punishment currently involved. I believe that it should be a lesser sentence with treatment required as well. Treat and teach rather than punish at that level, and prevent it from reaching the level that statistics indicate it will reach without intervention.

[nickcoons]

I believe there are a couple of things to cover here, which I'll outline briefly before I begin.


My personal views on children pornography, it's creation, possession, and related acts.
Principles that underly the libertarian political philosophy, and how legislation should be determined.
Separation of morality and state.
Restating the topic.


My personal views on children pornography, it's creation, possession, and related acts.

After this, I'll get into the crux of the topic regarding the legality of possession of child pornography, how making it (or keeping it) illegal can be harmful, and gray areas that this introduces. And finally, I'll address some of the specific comments made here, and point out some of the logical flaws in how the conclusions based on data were reached.

I believe virtually everything related to child pornography (it's creation, distribution, possession, enjoyment, etc.) to be repugnant. I have never taken part in any aspect of it, nor do I ever intend to. I believe that those who do are generally in need of psychological assistance to some degree.

Principles that underly the libertarian political philosophy, and how legislation should be determined.

The libertarian political philosophy has many underlying axioms (which I will not get into here) that conclude that each individual owns themselves, and therefore any initiation of force or fraud against any other individual is not to be allowed. In fact, the sole purpose of government is to protect individuals against the initiation of force or fraud. To do otherwise puts government into a position where it itself must initiate force against the very individuals it is intended to protect.

Examples of initiating force are murder, slavery, theft, rape, kidnapping, and trespassing. This is to be distinguished from retaliatory force, which is the use of force in response to someone initiating it against your or someone else, and is perfectly acceptable. An example of retaliatory force is self-defense. A free society, the goal of libertarianism, is one where the initiation of force is not tolerated, where government is charged with protecting individuals from this, and where government itself may not commit it. When the initiation of force is prevented, rights are by extension protected.

This takes us to the issue of rights. A "right" is a principle defining and sanctioning one's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right, of which all others are drawn from, and that is the right to one's life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. The right to life means the right to engage in these actions, which means the freedom of one to engage in actions to further his life and enjoyment of it (such is the meaning of "the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness").

The concept of a "right" pertains to freedom of action; freedom from physical compulsion of coercion by others. For each individual, a "right" is a sanction of a position; to act on one's own judgment for one's own goals, by one's own voluntary uncoerced choice. For others, rights impose no obligations on others except that of a negative kind, to not violate one's rights. The purpose of government, and the only purpose of government, is to insure the non-violation of rights. It can only insure that if it is not sanctioned to violate our rights in the process.[hr]
(continued...)

Separation of morality and state.

Often times, moral views are the basis of political views. People use their morality (wherever they derive it from) to determine what should be legal and what should be illegal. That is, something that is right should be legal, and something that is wrong should be illegal. A clear problem should be obvious with this solution, though, and it's that we have a diverse set of morals. Some people gain their moral beliefs from religion, of which there are many that preach their own moral codes. And yet others from various philosophical beliefs. Politics has become the practice of groups of people trying to impose their moral beliefs on others.

This is where the libertarian political ideology differs. In brief, I will live by moral beliefs, and you can live by yours, so long as neither of us are infringing on the rights of each other (i.e. if my moral beliefs require that I sacrifice you, then we have a problem). For Christians, whose self-proclaimed goal is often to live a Christ-like life, it may be worth considering that Jesus was libertarian in his approach. Jesus was known for preaching his beliefs and using arguments in an attempt to convince others that he was right. He pleaded with people to see his point of view and accept his moral codes. But in the end, if that failed, he accepted that they had free will. Never did he put a sword to someone's throat and require that they accept his views. This is the libertarian political view.

But most people figuratively point a gun to their neighbors' heads, by proxy, every few years when they go to the ballot box and they vote to enact laws (or vote for politicians to enact laws) to force people to accept their moral code. And I say "figuratively", but if you think of the logical conclusion of a law, it's not really figurative at all.

Imagine a local business required by the state to have a license in order to engage in business. By not complying with this statute, the business owner has violated no one's rights, but he has broken the law. The state will begin a potentially long and drawn-out process, first by contacting the business owner in writing, attempting to collect penalties, and if the business owner still doesn't cooperate (and has still violated no one's rights), the state will send in someone bigger, stronger, and/or better armed and force the business owner to comply. All laws are backed by force, otherwise they cannot guarantee compliance. It is this initiation of force that libertarians oppose.

One might argue, upon reading this, that without government initiating force in this manner, we cannot have a civilized society. I would be happy to explain how this assumption is completely false, but that explanation is outside the scope of this post, and probably even the forum's rules. Suffice it to say, 200 years ago we believed that slavery was required in order to have a civilized society. After all, without slave labor, who would tend the fields and grow crops? Today, we know this to be a ridiculous concept. Not only is civilization possible without slavery, it's actually far improved.

It is my hope that people will someday realize that relieving all institutions, including government, from the ability to legally initiate force against individuals in all aspects of life that we will realize civilization at its greatest. This is my first run for political office. Let it be known that my goal in running for office is to educate, and spread these ideals. Winning is a secondary goal. I will not sugar-coat or water down the message, because it is based on years of personal philosophical discovery and is logically sound, for which I am not ashamed, and I will seek office on no other terms.

Restating the topic

To clarify, the topic of discussion is there mere possession of child pornography. We all seem to be in agreement that raping, molesting, and otherwise mistreating children in order to create pornography is a violation of their rights and therefore cannot be tolerated.

Kevin quoted me correctly in my statement that possession of child pornography should not be illegal, because the act of possessing does not violate anyone's rights. The argument that it should be illegal because an illegal act was required in order to create it is unsound. Otherwise, we could use that same argument to outlaw photos of murdered bodies, since the act of murder (which clearly is and should be illegal) was required in order to create the photo.[hr]
[i](continued...)[i/]

One may argue that in the case of the photo of a murdered body that the photo is merely a byproduct of the act, and that the deceased individual was not murdered for the sake of creating the photo. This argument presents two problems:


If the victim was murdered for the sake of creating the photo, the act of possessing such a photo would still not be illegal (though it may be incriminating evidence that the holder of the photo was the murderer, a very separate issue).
If two underage children were experimenting sexually with each other (which happens frequently), and the location of this experimentation wasn't exactly private, and someone passed by, noticed the act, and began taking pictures, the photography would be arrested instantly, even though no rights were violated in this case. Additionally, if someone happened upon these photographs and maintained possession of them, he would be arrested as well, but no rights were violated throughout the entire chain of creating the photos.


There is another issue with the idea of possession, and that is that it's assumed that the rights of children were violated in the creation of such photos. Today more than ever, this is in question. Technology is to the point where depictions of this nature can be completely computer-generated, and it would be impossible to tell the difference from the real thing. As computer technology continues to evolve, I see this becoming more prevalent, because it'll be easier and less risky to create computer-generated child pornography than to it is to violate the rights of children. Making a logical argument to outlaw it at that point could prove difficult.

There are many things that people do that I find distasteful. I will use my reasoned arguments in order to dissuade them from these activities. But in the end, if that fails, I must recognize that the ultimate decision about their life, so long as they are not violating anyone's rights in the process, belongs to them.

I'll respond to some of the individual comments in the next post.

[audra sonata]

thanks for your clarification of your points, Nick. While I don't necessarily agree with your stances, I appreciate the opportunity to understand them better.

[nickcoons]

Studies conducted by various organizations have shown that pornography is extremely influential in the actions of sex offenders and serial murders. Further, statistics show that 90 percent of the predators who molest children have had some type of involvement with pornography.

Concluding that pornography causes child molestation based on this information is a logical fallacy known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. In short, correlation does not equal causation. A more obvious example of this fallacy would be, "The Soviet Union fell after electing a bald president. Therefore, we must avoid electing a bald president for the same reason."

Rationally, one would think that a rapist or child molester would expose themselves to pornography more so than the general population; because whatever drives them to rape and molest is the same thing that drives them to pornography. There is no reason to believe that one is the cause of the other.

By mutual agreement between Mr. Coons and myself this would be a good place for public debate of our differences.

That's not exactly true, as can easily be inferred from your quoted message in your first post.

Mr. Coons who is a candidate for Congress where such legislation is enacted or revoked holds that possession of child pornography should not be a crime.

If this is your concern, then you need not worry. Constitutionally, this is an issue determined by the states, and I'm running for a federal position.

All I can do is talk about my views,

What unique quality do I possess, that you do not, the allows me to run, but not you?

Mr. Coons is seeking votes to gain a position of power to implement his views.

That's partially true. As I stated in my previous post, winning is secondary. The primary goal, and by far the most important, is to have an opportunity to speak to a large audience about the ideals of libertarianism.

Now as for who are the guilty parties? While I agree with the aspect that just because someone has such pictures doesn't mean he was responsible for their being taken, but ultimately my feeling is, this falls under that category of what any other black market enterprise does....if there wasn't a market for it, meaning no one bought or wanted it, it would likely not be something someone would pursue to do. So if someone downloads or buys these types of pictures, they are "creating" the market for others to want to capitalize on, and it seems no one has any consideration for the subjects in them.

You have the concepts of production and consumption reversed. Someone must produce this product in order for someone else to consume it. No one can consume child pornography until someone else has produced it.

But it sounds like what you're alluding to is the idea that there more people that consume it, the more people will produce it. So if we outlaw consumption, we minimize production. However, if we look at our attempts to do this in the past, we see that it's not true.

After alcohol prohibition was instituted, consumption dropped slightly and then began to rise. Other violent crimes rose drastically in order to fill the needs of the newly-created black market, and organized crime was introduced. We see the same thing today with the war on drugs. Prisons are full of non-violent drug possessors. Drug users, unable to obtain equipment through above-ground sources, are reduced to using non-sterile equipment. Prohibition causes a rise in prices due to a reduction in competitiveness, which increased theft as addicts strive to acquire the resources to feed their addiction. On the other hand, in places around the world where there are fewer restrictions on drug use (like Amsterdam), the occurrence of drug use is actually less than in the United States.

Like drugs, the consumption of pornography is a social and medical/psychological issue, and should be dealt with in that manner, not through the criminal justice system by threat of force.[hr]

thanks for your clarification of your points, Nick. While I don't necessarily agree with your stances, I appreciate the opportunity to understand them better.


And thank you as well. Your thought-out posts are always appreciated. I know this is a sensitive and emotional topic, so I don't expect to change a lot of minds on this one.

[Admin]

I find that, like you and admin, I agree the holding of child pornography should be a crime, but, like Nick, I do not agree to the punishment currently involved. I believe that it should be a lesser sentence with treatment required as well. Treat and teach rather than punish at that level, and prevent it from reaching the level that statistics indicate it will reach without intervention.


This is the better of the processes stated here, and akin to my own view, as well as Nick's, with Audra's added "treatment and education" factors I overlooked, but should have considered, because she is right, simply removing such people from society does nothing but burden the state with yet another "user" to allude Nick's analogy of consumption to black market drug use, with no corrective measure, however Audra adds "treatment", assuming psychological or psychiatric, as opposed to just removing them from society because this will, if successful, prevent them and possibly others from repeating the offense.
Now considering the statement of getting the consumption, production, backwards, I disagree, and here is why...
Nick states "You have the concepts of production and consumption reversed. Someone must produce this product in order for someone else to consume it. No one can consume child pornography until someone else has produced it.

But it sounds like what you're alluding to is the idea that there more people that consume it, the more people will produce it. So if we outlaw consumption, we minimize production. However, if we look at our attempts to do this in the past, we see that it's not true.

After alcohol prohibition was instituted, consumption dropped slightly and then began to rise. Other violent crimes rose drastically in order to fill the needs of the newly-created black market, and organized crime was introduced. We see the same thing today with the war on drugs. Prisons are full of non-violent drug possessors. Drug users, unable to obtain equipment through above-ground sources, are reduced to using non-sterile equipment. Prohibition causes a rise in prices due to a reduction in competitiveness, which increased theft as addicts strive to acquire the resources to feed their addiction. On the other hand, in places around the world where there are fewer restrictions on drug use (like Amsterdam), the occurrence of drug use is actually less than in the United States.

Like drugs, the consumption of pornography is a social and medical/psychological issue, and should be dealt with in that manner, not through the criminal justice system by threat of force."

While I do understand there needs to be something first in order to consume it, I am not consenting to outlaw the consumer in order to prevent to producer, but instead am stating that once something exists, the degree to which it exists increases with the demand for it, and the demand for it increases with the exposure it is given.
Think back to when your first exposure to any sexually oriented images were introduced to you, depending on when that was, it may have been nothing more than the opposite sex in undies, to full frontal nudity and even erotic innuendo, or positions, to totally graphic photos of genitals from angles even the owner could not possibly view. So it goes one's first introduction to stimulating pictures of the opposite sex (we won't get in to same sex ideologies here) however as restrictions became more relaxed, these at some time progressed on to full and complete sexual acts, which in it's self, can still be considered "normal adult activities" and a great stimulator of pubescent teens, regardless of gender.
However there are acts which are considered either "kinky" or a "fetish" which exceeds what is considered "normal adult activities".

Now at what point do you remember this being the case for yourself? (rhetorical question) after finding the initial images less stimulating due to becoming overly familiar with them, when something new came in to scope, bang, more stimulating and what;s more not just physically but mentally, you mind has now been opened to new horizons, and now you are able to fantasize beyond the mere "normal adult activities" but explore many new possibilities YOU thought of yourself, even though you have not yet been introduced to them as being done by others, and you found that these would be most enjoyable if it were ever possible to realize, but at this young point in your life you do not see these as obtainable, and maybe feel it would be wrong to enact, but not to think just as thinking of an illegal action is not wrong as long as you keep in control and do not act on those thoughts.
Lets face it people have many layers to their minds and can conceive unimaginable things that others would never think of, but have their own "demons" as well and what makes them upstanding citizens is not, not having such thoughts, but not acting upon them.

So where am I going with this?
Well consider now, that as a young teen at the age of experimenting with all the new sensations and urges and drives, but knowing what is right and wrong as taught by parents, schooling, religion, or self imposed ethics and morals, you are divided between satisfying the curiosity of what it is like to do this, and knowing it is not acceptable to act upon these thoughts, as well as a strong need for releasing pent up primal urges from soaring hormones, and find a willing suitable partner to explore these with together.

Well although it is inappropriate, many times these days teens are engaging in sex at very young ages, and this is normal, many early societies and some still in existence do not feel 15 is too young to start their family, after all, where they live, their life expectancy may be 50 or less, although our society feels otherwise.

But the point I am getting to is, when exploring with a partner, many things may or may not seem pleasant to one the other or both, however inhibitions are created by what we are taught to be "no".

However with the ever increasing exposure over the last 20 years, with magazine publications becoming more hardcore, and more and more lewd acts, and fetishes, and kinky activities being portrayed in these, and now Internet venues that these APPEAR to new adolescents as common practices and ok to do, (they do not realize it is acting and fulfilling fantasies, and not a normal everyday practice, although for some it is or does become so, again exposure and approval goes a long way) so when proposed to perform them in front of a camera for big money or in some cases any money, it is very appealing and what becomes of this is a breakdown of what is normal and what is not, and with a huge gray area between, they can no longer differentiate between the two and find it perfectly acceptable as they become adults with distorted senses of the moralistic governors which have become essentially absent, and now you have adults who feel the taking of pictures or videos of young teens acceptable to them, because they were misguided when young.
So now there is a new generation of kids going through the same period but now, these are available all over the web, and see this as common day activities, find it stimulating or pleasant, and like any kind of pleasure stimulation in the brain, even addicting, and although you are right Nick, someone needs to produce something first, once it has, it is in fact the DEMAND that perpetuates it.

If I created something in a large quantity, a hybrid flowering shrub that looks beautiful when in bloom, and blooms profusely for the entire summer, and based on the pictures people bought them, and then reported or reviewed their experience with this flowering shrub that the flowers smell terrible, like dog doo or worse rotting meat,(there actually is such a succulent that has a beautiful flower that starts like a Chinese lantern, then opens to a very exotic looking fuzzy flower with purple stripes) because the principal pollinator was flies instead of bees, no one is now going to buy my plant because despite it's beauty, it reeks, then production would cease because there is no market for it.
Then the same will hold true in the instance that despite the product being scintillating to some, by reducing the exposure and treating the offenders who procure them, there will be less of a market, less exposure to new prospects, and with such, a reduction in production it then will be easier to catch and eliminate the producers, and THEY get the most severe penalties, not those who were just drawn in because the common day exposure inclined them to no longer resist their temptation, considering this has become so accessible, and nothing seems to be done about it, and there fore the greater the demand the greater the production, remove the demand and production cost will exceed profits and it is no longer an equitable proposition, and THEN the market will be limited to true violators and not casual acquisitions.

At which point I would then agree to increasing the consequences of possession, but nothing short of that, after all, exposure to things many people never would imagine on their own is regulated highly in the public media venues, when something is being presented to the public it is through a barrage of idealistic exposure meant for them to visualize themselves as those in the commercials, and to create the need to have this or be socially deficient.

Unfortunately this seems to be more based upon sexual explicitness rather than psychologically imbalanced violent killers, and the sensationalism of such acts, which have been attributed to many deaths of innocents such as John Lennon, and those poor young people's lives Son of Sam has taken, both for publicity and nothing more.

So you can see where reduction of demand has a profound affect on the production of something, and even taking your example, which I often quote myself, Amsterdam is a city that has legal limited recreational drug allowances, legal prostitution and legal gambling, as well as medically certified places of occurrence as well as strict medical monitoring of those who participate in these activities, and has the lowest of high density cities in the world, incidences of both violent, and sexual crimes, as well as great reductions in many other types of crime, and is attributed to the lack of black markets, as well as the removal of the "thrill" or "excitement" created by doing something that is not allowed and that risk of getting caught.

So I am not sure i have it completely backwards, and yes by imposing such prohibitions does drive that sector of population below ground but we are living a country that perpetuates this through it's constant control of our liberties, in the form of "protecting us from ourselves" however, and I know this sounds crude and maybe heartless, but if our country were to legalize drugs, a number of things will happen, one there will be a division of peoples those who use and those who do not, the government will get huge revenues through taxation of such commodities, so more money in the state and federal kitty, then even more money back in the till for not longer having the expense burden of billions of dollars in the war on drugs, and those who use, depending on their self control to not abuse, will either become and addict and likely die of an OD or hiv, and yes we will lose a few innocent non users as we do with every drunk driver, however many times these drugs are less debilitating than alcohol unless combined, even in small quantities, but ultimately after the novelty of the legality wears off, you WILL have less users than even today, you will have more revenue to educate people and youngsters as to why they should not do it even though it is legal, such as the tobacco awareness that has spread across the country over the last ten or more years, you will reduce the sexual crimes for those who have no partners and have a strong drive to release, because there will be legitimate, and therefore much less expensive alternatives to do this rather than to rape or molest an unwilling innocent victim. And again this too can be taxed and raise income for further educating the people,and this is where I think we miss it all together, and yes i know I am straying here, but truth be told we do not need a government to force us to be safe from ourselves or our activities, we need to fund educating people WHY it is important to protect themselves and if they choose not to it is their right, and they will die and remove ignorance from our society, by removing the perpetuation of ignorants raising ignorants because they keep removing themselves from the gene pool, so it will go with all of those people with such a nature about them, and yes they may take some others with them, and it will be a sad thing, but it is inevitable that innocent people die before their time, if not this something will cause it to happen be it lightening tornadoes or what have you, but ultimately over time, the whole of society will then be governing themselves and be forced by the government to wear a helmet when riding a bike, or wearing a seat belt, if you are so stupid to not wear one, and you go through the windshield, do you think making it a law is going to protect them? No the reason for all these laws are to attain revenues, under the guise of imposing safety, nothing more.

(steps down from the soapbox)
Thank you,

Admin!

[coppertime]

The analogy I would like to present is banking. When I was first involved in banking thirty years ago, all banks were highly regulated and audited. With deregulation, the thought was, lets let all of these banks regulate themselves because, after all, the jobs and reputations of the employees are at stake. When the generation of bankers, who were used to being regulated and following rules, retired, the next generation of self-governed bankers took over and as my career came to an end I saw the decline of caring what happened to anyone else and "get mine first" take over. The idea that people will do the right thing on their own is totally ludicrous. Does anyone believe that these bankers and mortgage brokers who were making decisions based on their own monetary gains but "not breaking the law" should not be held accountable for the havoc they have caused? After all, they were helping people and not "causing any harm" weren't they? Do any of you have a 401K? I, personally, would rather have had someone in authority holding the reins on what was good for society as a whole and not dependant on the bankers to be morally responsible. People with no rules will always push the envelop to the next level and the innocent bystanders who are trying to do the right thing will suffer the mayhem along with them. If people are allowed to possess, sell and pass around something as despicable as child pornography, what will be next? I hope I'm dead by then.

[Admin]

WoW Coppertime,
That was a powerful analogy, well said and with impact.

Understand...there many layers of society, and not all are aware of some of the others, and that whether or not someone does know about a particular layer of society, those that are aware, tend to try to spread the word about it and get it in the open, those involved tend to defer those that ask towards anything they think they can sell to the public, or people will buy, in politics this is called spin, in real life (not to exclude politics) this is lying to the public by feeding them what they want to hear, while at the same time creating more markets for products or services through which will be communicated by the medias and draw them all in to buying something else that will lead them to feel like this makes them a part of society and accepted by others, unaware of what this ends up as.
When these proud companies had philosophies, and integrity, with people first attitudes and giving employees what they earned for the company, and through which the company was built to be so big,take care of your people and your customers and the numbers will take care of themselves. This was true too, and many companies thrived and split their stocks numerous times over the first 10 or so years.
When the employees were cared for, they were more inclined to care about the customer, and in turn produced tremendous volumes of business, and people followed the direction the media is paid to point them, after all the directions to belong to society by a majority are people came in the form of advertising, however it seems truth in advertising is no longer monitored for, and since this new generation has decided this isn't enough any more, things changed much as Coppertime describes, and over the past ten or so years, this has been spreading like a plague through out many companies and employees lost leverage and were shifted in to more for less situations while the company took more and more, reduced staff more work loads less benefits most no longer subsidize health insurance although they offer the lower group rate.
So with all this going on many people are so wrapped up in what the next request for their earnings are that they never stop to think or see how much is really happening, and i am not accusing anyone of being self absorbed, although some may be, this is not what I am saying, instead it is the media filling our days by controlling the children the teens the twenty and a different method and strategy for each demography do this do that get this get that, and everyday people are run so ragged and become so pliable over time that it becomes a way of life, meanwhile others not connected to society in general or at least the majority layers, fall through the cracks and see many more things, and get exposure to a diverse set of sub cultures that exist and many are ugly, and some are cut throat, and those aware have little ability to change thing on their own, because the voices aren't loud enough for those who can change things can hear, so helplessly we watch this play out and people will continue to prey on people, and use anyone for their advancement or personal gain, with little conscience, again such as those Coppertime describes, but they are not to blame...oh no...they are just pawns of the big business machine, they underwent personality evaluations to get their positions, and these "screening" forms help them to choose those smart enough to do the job, but not smart or inquisitive enough to think about things as well as being pliable and and open to the lure of power or money, and these tools are the hamsters in the wheel of corporate America, getting away with convincing the public everything is so great, you gotta have it, you deserve it, while spreading out further and deeper and higher up the governmental tree, instilling changes and blinding eyes to regulate their actions by putting people they have chosen in the key positions and advancing them up the governmental hierarchy passing bills and implementing changes that will fire up the money machines while all the peoples are losing their everything and if it hasn't yet it is soon to break the country, everything is spiraling and people are waking up, but it's too late, as people woke up people got laid off, but the tens of thousand nation wide, this is just a guesstimate on my part but I am likely conservative in my assumption.

So the point is, our past and present government has not been in any form "For the people" and as much as they will try to convince us otherwise it hasn't been "By the people" neither the democrats nor the republicans have demonstrated they act based on whom they represent except for the small number to provide faces and people behind the seats being held and spinning what ever their officials do in to whatever they want to hear, and here we are full circle and still there is someone buying illegal "contraband", (to not draw insidious pictures in people's minds), and no one has the power to do anything because everyone is being distracted by something else, we lost our control of our country and need to grab back the reigns, and i do not profess to know that much about ANY party, but from what I have seen so far a party supporting the governmental power reside in the hand of the people and the government officials are the facilitators FOR the people then it MUST be an improvement from what has grown to being what we see today!

Thank you for the inspiration Coppertime!

Admin!

[Admin]

TO ALL READERS!!!!

Just to be perfectly clear....since Nick Coons "has" clarified that this was not his intention as it was meant, I want you all to be aware I edited the title of this thread to exclude the insinuation that this was his idea to bring this debate from another forum to this one, but since the subject matter is pertinent to anyone raising children, to be aware of those that would violate these children, I felt it would be alright to have this discussion here since it has been done with integrity and with in the rules of posting and did not get out of hand.
I would like to than Kevin for being civil and professional in as much as this discussion went, and for not arguing the point of what Nick meant in his post as far as bringing the discussion here goes!

Admin!

[nickcoons]

While I do understand there needs to be something first in order to consume it, I am not consenting to outlaw the consumer in order to prevent to producer, but instead am stating that once something exists, the degree to which it exists increases with the demand for it, and the demand for it increases with the exposure it is given.

I understand, which is why I addressed this in the following paragraph:

But it sounds like what you're alluding to is the idea that the more people that consume it, the more people will produce it. So if we outlaw consumption, we minimize production. However, if we look at our attempts to do this in the past, we see that it's not true.

The idea of outlawing consumption removing the demand for production is not true. It simply drives the demand underground, which is exactly what we see now. Child pornography, even something that is completely computer-generated and has in no way harmed any children in the production, is transferred using P2P applications, usenet, and IRC channels where the source is left completely anonymous. Consumption is illegal, and demand has been driven nowhere near zero.

As I mentioned before, I believe this to be a social and medical/psychological issue, and should be dealt with in that manner. If we make consumption illegal, we turn this into a matter from the criminal justice system, a system ill-equipped by design to properly handle this issue.

I hope we can all agree that every adult is responsible for his or her own actions. By extension, that means that you are not responsible for my actions, because my actions are my responsibility and therefore cannot be your responsibility. Using these principles of personal responsibility, a consumer should be held legally liable for any harm caused to children in the creation of pornography, because they did not cause the harm. Shifting the blame from those doing the damage (the producers) to those who have done no damage (the consumers) does nothing to solve the problem.

The analogy I would like to present is banking. When I was first involved in banking thirty years ago, all banks were highly regulated and audited. With deregulation, the thought was, lets let all of these banks regulate themselves because, after all, the jobs and reputations of the employees are at stake. When the generation of bankers, who were used to being regulated and following rules, retired, the next generation of self-governed bankers took over and as my career came to an end I saw the decline of caring what happened to anyone else and "get mine first" take over. The idea that people will do the right thing on their own is totally ludicrous. Does anyone believe that these bankers and mortgage brokers who were making decisions based on their own monetary gains but "not breaking the law" should not be held accountable for the havoc they have caused? After all, they were helping people and not "causing any harm" weren't they? Do any of you have a 401K? I, personally, would rather have had someone in authority holding the reins on what was good for society as a whole and not dependant on the bankers to be morally responsible. People with no rules will always push the envelop to the next level and the innocent bystanders who are trying to do the right thing will suffer the mayhem along with them.

I would no doubt reach the posting limit if I had to cover everything that was wrong, both factually and by evaluation, with this comment, but I'll try to keep this short :smilie:.

First, banks have never been deregulated. The word "deregulation" when it comes to banks is another example of politicians horribly misusing the meaning of a word, just like when they call our economy a "free market", when in fact we have never had a free market in the history of our country.

A free market economy is self-regulating. Any amount of greed is balanced by its counterpart; risk. If I have $1,000 to "invest", my "greed" is going to cause me to choose the best investment, but the "risk" involved is going to temper the investment so that I make the soundest decision possible. I could put the $1,000 on a roulette wheel because I might walk away with $30,000.. sounds like a pretty good deal. But the risk of loss is high, so I won't.

Let's say I had someone standing behind me with an endless supply of cash. If I lost my $1,000 in an investment, then he would simply reimburse me endlessly. But if my investment paid off, I'd get to keep it. In the absence of risk, my greed would run rampant, and I'd put it on the roulette table repeatedly until I won, not caring about how much I lost or where the guy behind me was getting his cash from.

What the supposed "deregulation" bill of 1999 did was put the endless supply of cash of the Federal Reserve behind banks. When they have endless supplies of cash that the Federal Reserve will print, they don't care about losing money because it's not their money. So they'll loan it to anybody.

This is not in any way deregulation, because the guy behind me with the endless supply of cash has to be getting it from somewhere. In the case of the Federal Reserve, he's creating it out of thin air, devaluing the cash that everyone else holds, causing prices to skyrocket. This is a form of indirect taxation. Instead of the government taxing us directly, they're "printing" new money, which causes the price of everything we buy to go up. This is why gold, oil, real-estate, food, etc. started rising several years back. But no matter how they take the money from us, they're giving it to the banks just the same.

So your analogy doesn't work. In general, people will do the right thing when their own assets are at risk if they do the wrong thing. When the government steps in and provides a safety net by removing risk, you can count on submission to greed.

Now, regarding "the right thing" in the context of looking at child pornography, that is subjective. I tend to agree with you that it is wrong, but trying to bend people to our moral will is not a reason for criminalizing an act. The mere possession and viewing of that content harms no one, and it is by that criteria which the existence of laws should be decided.

[Kevin]

While I do understand there needs to be something first in order to consume it, I am not consenting to outlaw the consumer in order to prevent to producer, but instead am stating that once something exists, the degree to which it exists increases with the demand for it, and the demand for it increases with the exposure it is given.

<SNIP>

Now, regarding "the right thing" in the context of looking at child pornography, that is subjective. I tend to agree with you that it is wrong, but trying to bend people to our moral will is not a reason for criminalizing an act. The mere possession and viewing of that content harms no one, and it is by that criteria which the existence of laws should be decided.



As far as I understand the way you make your points my take is that by your Libertarian standards possession of child pornography should still be a crime and like the production of child pornography regulated / criminalized by government.

If a person molested / rapes a child, I say rape because a child must by law not be legally capable of consent, then this is a crime.


If the molestation has an audience, who themselves do not touch the child, they are equally guilty by their participation.

If the audience, in part or total, views the molestation via webcam or other transmission they are still equally guilty as the person who criminal act?


Kevin[hr]



If the audience, in part or total, views the molestation via webcam or other transmission they are still equally guilty as the person who criminal act?

Sorry, that last line should read;

If the audience, in part or total, views the molestation via web cam or other transmission they are still equally as the the person who physically committed the criminal act?


Kevin

[Admin]

While I do understand there needs to be something first in order to consume it, I am not consenting to outlaw the consumer in order to prevent to producer, but instead am stating that once something exists, the degree to which it exists increases with the demand for it, and the demand for it increases with the exposure it is given.

I understand, which is why I addressed this in the following paragraph:

But it sounds like what you're alluding to is the idea that the more people that consume it, the more people will produce it. So if we outlaw consumption, we minimize production. However, if we look at our attempts to do this in the past, we see that it's not true.

I did not actually say outlawing consumption was the answer I was pointing out that ANY market is based on supply and demand, and although, if going underground is the result of restrictions of its use and distribution publicly, then at least exposure and attracting more people to that market is further reduced, less exposure, less awareness, less awareness fewer people with the thought in their mind that this is either attainable or even ever finding out if it is something they find desirable, now remember I refer primarily to those who are not yet worldly experienced, and obscurity is a form of protecting many form such exposure to the concept and idea of the nature of this, and this will in fact further reduce how much is needed to be produced, and therefore if even one in ten of the real victims are spared being a victim because of the lower number of people requesting such material, then it is that many less victims, and well worth the difficulties and possible legal implications put upon offenders of the existing laws.

The idea of outlawing consumption removing the demand for production is not true. It simply drives the demand underground, which is exactly what we see now. Child pornography, even something that is completely computer-generated and has in no way harmed any children in the production, is transferred using P2P applications, usenet, and IRC channels where the source is left completely anonymous. Consumption is illegal, and demand has been driven nowhere near zero.

I noticed numerous times you have referred to CGI's and as far as those go, I agree that although those possessing and viewing/utilizing in any fashion are as you described "to be repugnant", lets leave these out of the conversation to prevent further misinterpretations, by confusing which statements apply to which form of this content, and keep this thread only about actual forms of child pornography and those offenders who create utilize, distribute transmit or sell the many venues it comes in.
Would that be alright with everyone?

As I mentioned before, I believe this to be a social and medical/psychological issue, and should be dealt with in that manner. If we make consumption illegal, we turn this into a matter from the criminal justice system, a system ill-equipped by design to properly handle this issue.
I agree with most of this, as even in the cases of domestic violence, our criminal justice system is ill equipped to handle these types of disputes gone awry, never mind these more insidious acts against innocents, but why is this?

Is it because we do not have the funds to create specially trained law enforcers to address this?

Is it because too many political officials participate in such activities? (often times politicians more often than others but clergy and educators, to name a few others as well, have been found guilty of being offenders of crimes against children's rights)

Is it because there are no returns in revenues?
Since often times laws are put on the books to serve no other purpose than to garner increases in revenues to the township, county, or state!

Or maybe it is because political agendas, for which most lawmakers are politicians, do not get votes from children and focus attention on appeasing those larger public sectors that will gain more support for repeating their terms or becoming an official in a greater or higher capacity, you see Nick, unlike you maybe, many people are in politics not because of their beliefs in the systems in place, not because their desire is to make a small part of the world a little better, not because so many people like them and look to them for leadership, but because of nothing ore than the lure of power, and the compensation that comes with being in power, and even those few that do enter such a career for the right reasons, soon find out, rather rudely at that, if they follow their hearts and truly wish to instill
positive changes, they will be otherwise advised at first, then pressured through either higher authorities to let something go because it is in their best interests to do so, or actually be threatened through higher authorities to back off or go in another direction or something that may not even be true, will be exposed about them to discredit their character, which has happened, and once this hits the media, it is over, there is no going back, because the powers that be know how and where to plant such seeds of deceit where they will grow and mature with the greatest negative impact on the good intention politician, who is in their position for the right reasons, and sadly this is our government today, join the program or you will be completely discredited and it will be the end of your political career.

So what other reasons are there for our criminal justice system to not be equipped to handle and deal with such situations?

Could it be that by investigating tips and evidence pointing to a potential offender is blind eyed because should it come to pass that this was the case and the offenders are prosecuted and convicted there will be that many more children burdening the state's budget allowances for their already underfunded overcrowded foster care systems, and those underpaid CSW's, and case workers, and other more educated practitioners such as psychologists, and psychiatrists, of which usually are not of substantial quality of care for the salaries they are offered, whose role is to help these abused, violated, and vulnerable children to recapture some semblance of a normal childhood or well adjusted and balanced adult life?

Doesn't anyone else think that this is half backwards?

That so many enforcement personnel are out there in numbers too large to count, just sitting in a car with radar gun to catch a speeding driver, or writing tickets on meters expired three minutes ago, or spending court time extorting money from people because although their insurance was intact for the period, they are charging them almost two hundred dollars for a piece of paper that was not recently updated?
You see where this is going, we have huge numbers of law enforcement trained in unethical practices to bring in revenues to their township, county, or state, but very few actually protecting those who are paying them, but I guess it is so since children cannot not pay them, so they do not deem it practical or economically sound to put money in to those aspects of enforcement?!

I hope we can all agree that every adult is responsible for his or her own actions. By extension, that means that you are not responsible for my actions, because my actions are my responsibility and therefore cannot be your responsibility. Using these principles of personal responsibility, a consumer should be held legally liable for any harm caused to children in the creation of pornography, because they did not cause the harm. Shifting the blame from those doing the damage (the producers) to those who have done no damage (the consumers) does nothing to solve the problem.

You have pointed this out in a number of circumstances, now remember we are excluding CGI's because none can deny that anyone's rights were infringed upon, however it still does damage, because they are so well made these days, that often, socially inept people will not know the difference and those who are ignorant of this fact may still respond to the "more exposure, more likely an increase in perpetrators" correlation I previously established, where if these were not manufactured, or produced, and sold or distributed either, there would be a negative impact upon the frequency this occurs with real subjects, because just as in movies, in which many effects are used to produce a series of scenes that are made to look real enough to believe, often times emotionally imbalanced individuals have responded with enacting those scenes in real life with real people for some sick thrill, or to et the media attention that in their minds makes them a celebrity, and then to make it worse, while serving their jail term after being convicted, on a number of occasions, have made more money that you or I will in a life time of honest work, from writing a book and having it published, because with many marketing techniques applied, people are programed to respond to, will but that publication and contribute to the wealth of convicted violent criminal who has such emotional, and psychological imbalances, will likely never be rehabilitated or be able to become a regular participant of society.

With all that said, the majority of people who are a positive contributor to the society they belong to, are in fact the one's responsible for their own actions, agreed! However this does not relieve them/us of the responsibility of another's actions if they are not conducting themselves with in the parameters set by that society, and the laws regulating it.

Although it is not likely someone will be held responsible for the actions of another they are not exposed to, what is being implied by this statement is that, if while walking through a park, and observing a female's rights being violated by a male forcing himself upon her, well the observing person is not responsible for the male's actions, so should have no obligation to do anything about it, after all he can not be held responsible for this other persons actions, right? well there are laws on the books that in fact make your statement wrong in as much as, by knowingly allowing another person to perform activities that break laws and does nothing to report, prevent, intervene or just plain ignores or walks on by, is in fact prosecutable as an accessory or obligation of guilt by proxy for knowingly allowing this incident to occur, so I have to disagree with that statement applying in the circumstances we are discussing here, allowing this or ignoring this is happening, or better termed, knowing this is happening and not doing anything about it, does make you responsible for another's actions when it comes to violating another's civil rights, human rights, and is not a part of the liberties bestowed upon us for being born in this country, but in fact it is because of this ability, or loop hole, to wash one's hands of these responsibilities, so much of these improprieties even exist.

The analogy I would like to present is banking. When I was first involved in banking thirty years ago, all banks were highly regulated and audited. With deregulation, the thought was, lets let all of these banks regulate themselves because, after all, the jobs and reputations of the employees are at stake. When the generation of bankers, who were used to being regulated and following rules, retired, the next generation of self-governed bankers took over and as my career came to an end I saw the decline of caring what happened to anyone else and "get mine first" take over. The idea that people will do the right thing on their own is totally ludicrous. Does anyone believe that these bankers and mortgage brokers who were making decisions based on their own monetary gains but "not breaking the law" should not be held accountable for the havoc they have caused? After all, they were helping people and not "causing any harm" weren't they? Do any of you have a 401K? I, personally, would rather have had someone in authority holding the reins on what was good for society as a whole and not dependant on the bankers to be morally responsible. People with no rules will always push the envelop to the next level and the innocent bystanders who are trying to do the right thing will suffer the mayhem along with them.

I would no doubt reach the posting limit if I had to cover everything that was wrong, both factually and by evaluation, with this comment, but I'll try to keep this short :smilie:.

For the record, because of the inefficiency and inconvenience that has become apparent, I doubled that post size limit, the initial limit was a default I missed setting when configuring the forum software, my apologies for this inconvenience. I didn't notice it myself because Admins and Mods are excluded from this limitation!

First, banks have never been deregulated. The word "deregulation" when it comes to banks is another example of politicians horribly misusing the meaning of a word, just like when they call our economy a "free market", when in fact we have never had a free market in the history of our country.

A free market economy is self-regulating. Any amount of greed is balanced by its counterpart; risk. If I have $1,000 to "invest", my "greed" is going to cause me to choose the best investment, but the "risk" involved is going to temper the investment so that I make the soundest decision possible. I could put the $1,000 on a roulette wheel because I might walk away with $30,000.. sounds like a pretty good deal. But the risk of loss is high, so I won't.

Let's say I had someone standing behind me with an endless supply of cash. If I lost my $1,000 in an investment, then he would simply reimburse me endlessly. But if my investment paid off, I'd get to keep it. In the absence of risk, my greed would run rampant, and I'd put it on the roulette table repeatedly until I won, not caring about how much I lost or where the guy behind me was getting his cash from.

What the supposed "deregulation" bill of 1999 did was put the endless supply of cash of the Federal Reserve behind banks. When they have endless supplies of cash that the Federal Reserve will print, they don't care about losing money because it's not their money. So they'll loan it to anybody.

This is not in any way deregulation, because the guy behind me with the endless supply of cash has to be getting it from somewhere. In the case of the Federal Reserve, he's creating it out of thin air, devaluing the cash that everyone else holds, causing prices to skyrocket. This is a form of indirect taxation. Instead of the government taxing us directly, they're "printing" new money, which causes the price of everything we buy to go up. This is why gold, oil, real-estate, food, etc. started rising several years back. But no matter how they take the money from us, they're giving it to the banks just the same.

So your analogy doesn't work. In general, people will do the right thing when their own assets are at risk if they do the wrong thing. When the government steps in and provides a safety net by removing risk, you can count on submission to greed.

Now, regarding "the right thing" in the context of looking at child pornography, that is subjective. I tend to agree with you that it is wrong, but trying to bend people to our moral will is not a reason for criminalizing an act. The mere possession and viewing of that content harms no one, and it is by that criteria which the existence of laws should be decided.

I think, Nick, Coppertime's point was not what you covered, but the increasingly self initiated benefits of the newer generation stepping in to replace the previous one, and with each occurrence, due to less restrictions or oversight, have become even more inclined to further get themselves in situations that will reap the greatest degree of power to ensure they are not imposed upon to be held in check, and greed for the resulting monetary reward for attaining these positions, with no regard for the repercussions of their actions nor the manner in which they were achieved, as well as at what cost to whom, and with no regard for those hurt or ruined in the process, as well as little investment in the company providing this situation because when they have sucked the life out of it, they can easily move on to another and repeat the process despite the resulting losses of other's jobs, benefits, and even salary reductions, while increasing their own.
I will add that your federal funding of banks through printing more, IS a valid result of what is being inferred, you see even though your point to show that deregulation, or not, still results in someone's ability to lose and not pay, but keep what is won, is in fact hurting everybody, and this is exactly what I think was the point, that how they see their positions is not with the ethics and integrity for the big picture to be considered, but just small minds filling big pockets and rationalizing it through spin and subterfuge, and not contributing anything positive to the situation or is done with consideration of what the big picture is and the dominoes they are putting in motion to fall.
But this is just how I grasping it, she may have had something else that i am missing, to the point she was trying to make with the banking analogy, bottom line though, if things are not done with a civilian oversight committee in place to monitor it, and those on that committee to be pure in their intentions and not be susceptible to being paid to look the other way, then anyone, since we are all humans I think (one never knows these days LOL) wills, as free as they are, can be eroded to become compliant and manipulated to do another's bidding, especially if it is in an indirect manner, and offers a bonus of some manner, as has been said of all humans and rarely if ever disproved, absolute power corrupts absolutely, so position and power, need to be separated, and shared and never be absolute as long as humans are in these positions!


[quote=Admin]While I do understand there needs to be something first in order to consume it, I am not consenting to outlaw the consumer in order to prevent to producer, but instead am stating that once something exists, the degree to which it exists increases with the demand for it, and the demand for it increases with the exposure it is given.

<SNIP>

Now, regarding "the right thing" in the context of looking at child pornography, that is subjective. I tend to agree with you that it is wrong, but trying to bend people to our moral will is not a reason for criminalizing an act. The mere possession and viewing of that content harms no one, and it is by that criteria which the existence of laws should be decided.



As far as I understand the way you make your points my take is that by your Libertarian standards possession of child pornography should still be a crime and like the production of child pornography regulated / criminalized by government.
This is a poor example of responding in a debate, which is deferring a poster's view as an entire other entity's view, as well as aiming the response at the poster and not the subject matter or view, please refrain from this kind of wording and try to better think how to phrase what you want to say in a less insinuating manner because such responses adds nothing positive to the debate, teaches no one anything, and makes you look bad for it, and we prefer that not happen as well because we appreciate and respect everyone who contributes to this forum...Thank you!

If a person molested / rapes a child, I say rape because a child must by law not be legally capable of consent, then this is a crime.


If the molestation has an audience, who themselves do not touch the child, they are equally guilty by their participation.

If the audience, in part or total, views the molestation via webcam or other transmission they are still equally guilty as the person who criminal act?


Kevin[hr]



If the audience, in part or total, views the molestation via webcam or other transmission they are still equally guilty as the person who criminal act?

Sorry, that last line should read;

If the audience, in part or total, views the molestation via web cam or other transmission they are still equally guilty as the the person who physically committed the criminal act?


Kevin


What you are trying to establish here is more or less what I have previously stated, using this and other venues to represent it, but i agree that consumption of an illegal byproduct does in fact make one guilty by proxy, because any reason to violate another's rights, is wrong, and punishable by law, especially when it is done for the sole purpose of profit, not only those who perform the intimal illegal act violating an Innocent's rights, but those who staged and filmed and copied and distributed that material also violated this person's rights, is it not illegal for one to use a shoe camera to film up the skirts of unknowing female subjects for sale on the Internet? since it is done unknowingly, as far as the subject is concerned, and nothing identifiable of that subject is exposed like face or geographical surroundings, based by the descriptions in the above posts, their rights have not been infringed upon, no one was hurt, but yet it is illegal when one of these subcultured creeps is caught in the act, so does that mean unless they are caught in the act it is alright to do? and when doing so should not be illegal because it is nothing more than imposing one sector population's morals upon another sector of population, because if they are not caught the subject is never aware it took place so no one was hurt and this is interpreted as not having infringed on another's rights.
I will stand on my positions that even if one does not participate in the actual violation of another's rights, but perpetuates others to violate other's rights through creating a demand on a market created with no other purpose than violating another's rights for profit, should be prosecutable, but not to the same extent as those initially violating another's rights.
Of course this excludes those sociopaths that do this for no other reason than to satisfy some primal urge and imposes themselves upon an un-consenting victim, in which case it is unlikely to be filmed, however in the case of pedophiles, who are doing more than the street molester or raper, but are in fact filming their activities for personal pleasure and review, ar in fact creating evidence of their activities, and anyone contributing to the perpetuation for this through their use or sharing of this material, are in fact guilty by proxy and should be charged as such because the only way to get to the source of this, is through those proxy violators and for doing so and resulting in the capture and conviction of the initial violators should then be teated s described by Audra, but those caught with said material who not only did not report or attempt to prevent it, should also be prosecuted, but not to the extent the actual perpetrators are.

Admin!

[nickcoons]

If a person molested / rapes a child, I say rape because a child must by law not be legally capable of consent, then this is a crime.

I don't agree that consent should be defined by statute, but that's outside of the scope of your point. I do agree with your point that a child cannot consent, and therefore your usage of the term "rape" would probably be correct.

If the molestation has an audience, who themselves do not touch the child, they are equally guilty by their participation.

If the audience, in part or total, views the molestation via web cam or other transmission they are still equally as the the person who physically committed the criminal act?

I wouldn't agree with that. Each of us is directly responsible for the actions in which we engage. Making the audience responsible for the actions of the rapist is shifting, in part, the responsibility from the rapist (who is infringing on the rights of the child) to the audience (who is infringing on no one's rights).

[coppertime]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you Mr. Coons. Any advertising executive will agree that showing a juicy hamburger or a gooey piping hot slice of pizza on a television commercial will send viewers who are junk-food junkies racing to their cars to get their whopper or pizza hut pizza. The same goes for the sick and slow-minded who pull up photos and videos of children being molested. Both groups, in their frenzy to satisfy a lust will be more likely to act on something that is definately not a good thing. One act will cause obesity and high cholesterol and the other will ruin a life. And noone will be harmed. Right!!!!!![hr]
"First, banks have never been deregulated. The word "deregulation" when it comes to banks is another example of politicians horribly misusing the meaning of a word, just like when they call our economy a "free market", when in fact we have never had a free market in the history of our country." quote from Nick Coons.

In the1930's the Glass Steagall Act was enacted by depression era politicians to prohibit the mixing of banking, securities and insurance. In the 1970's banks complained that they would lose customers to other types of financial companies and the government responded by giving greater freedom to banks. In 1999 congress enacted the "Financial Services Modernization Act which repealed the Glass Steagal Act. Banks were allowed to form fincial conglomerates to market mutual funds, stocks, bonds and auto loans. This was called a "deregulation". The S&L meltdown of the 1980's was also, in part, caused by congress relaxing the restrictions on lending while reducing their regulations staff. This was also call a "deregulation". The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989 imposed new restraints on S&L's, again, because they could not be trusted to regulate themselves. This was a taxpayer financed bailout that changed the regulatory apparatus for savings institutions. Most Americans agree that the government has a continuing responsibility to supervise financial institutions and prevent them from engaging in risky lending that could damage the entire economy. Well DUH!

[nickcoons]

I did not actually say outlawing consumption was the answer I was pointing out that ANY market is based on supply and demand, and although, if going underground is the result of restrictions of its use and distribution publicly...

Again, this is the exact opposite of what happened during prohibition. Alcohol consumption increased because it went underground. Drug consumption is lower in countries where it is legal.

I noticed numerous times you have referred to CGI's and as far as those go...
Would that be alright with everyone?

I know that we're referring to the "real deal", but I think CGI images are important to this issue. If a CGI representation of child pornography cannot be distinguished from the real thing (and this is entirely possible), how are any laws against mere possession of images to be enforced? Can't a suspect simply claim that any images he has are computer renderings, and it would be up to the prosecution to prove him guilty (which would be almost impossible), making such legal prohibitions pointless?

I agree with most of this, as even in the cases of domestic violence, our criminal justice system is ill equipped to handle these types of disputes gone awry, never mind these more insidious acts against innocents, but why is this?

It's because it's not a criminal justice issue. It is to be dealt with by people close to the ill person, such as family and friends; and by his voluntary consent, people who have experience in professionally dealing with such psychological issues.

Or maybe it is because political agendas, for which most lawmakers are politicians, do not get votes from children and focus attention on appeasing those larger public sectors that will gain more support for repeating their terms or becoming an official in a greater or higher capacity,

Politicians spend as much time talking about protecting children as they do pandering to their voter base's needs, and they are equally ineffective at doing anything positive about either.

you see Nick, unlike you maybe, many people are in politics not because...

I agree, but I don't think this has anything to do with this issue. Politicians are bad at trying to "fix" everything they claim to hold as priorities.

You have pointed this out in a number of circumstances, now remember we are excluding CGI's because none can deny that anyone's rights were infringed upon, however it still does damage, because they are so well made these days, that often, socially inept people will not know the difference and those who are ignorant of this fact may still respond to the "more exposure, more likely an increase in perpetrators" correlation I previously established,

Your argument about more exposure equals more perpetrators is entirely anecdotal, as would be the following argument:

"People have an inherent need to express their sexual desires, and some people's desires are to engage in sexual activities with children. This desire exists as a mental condition and does not come about because someone saw a naked picture of a 10-year-old and thought it was a good idea, as if this person had never had this desire before-hand. In the absence of child pornography, someone in this circumstance is more likely to go after actual children because of the lack of any other outlet. Therefore, the possession of child pornography should be allowed, and even encouraged among these types of people, because it will give them a much-needed outlet for their desires and keep actual children out of harm's way."

The closest thing I've seen to an actual correlation that was more than anecdotal was Audra's first post where she posted the statistics of pornography viewing as being higher by those involved in molesting children. But this is indeed a correlation and does not imply a cause at all. With this data, it could just as easily be stated (and probably with more accuracy) that those who molest children are more likely to view pornography, but there's no evidence that one is the cause of the other.

With all that said, the majority of people who are a positive contributor to the society they belong to, are in fact the one's responsible for their own actions, agreed! However this does not relieve them/us of the responsibility of another's actions if they are not conducting themselves with in the parameters set by that society, and the laws regulating it.

You are confusing the idea of being responsible for your own actions with the idea of acting responsibly. Someone who makes minimum wage and runs up $10k in credit card debt is not acting responsibly, but they are responsible for their own actions, which means that they alone must face the consequences those actions imply (in this case, to pay back the debt, and work extra to do so if necessary). Anyone acting irresponsibly is equally responsible for accepting the consequences of their actions. If we actually implemented this concept into our lives, people would act more responsibly because they wouldn't want to accept the consequences of acting irresponsibly.

Although it is not likely someone will be held responsible for the actions of another they are not exposed to, what is being implied by this statement is that, if while walking through a park, and observing a female's rights being violated by a male forcing himself upon her, well the observing person is not responsible for the male's actions, so should have no obligation to do anything about it, after all he can not be held responsible for this other persons actions, right?

Right. While anyone should be allowed to put themselves in harm's way for the defense of another, no one should be forced into this situation. This is called enslavement.

well there are laws on the books that in fact make your statement wrong in as much as, by knowingly allowing another person to perform activities that break laws and does nothing to report, prevent, intervene or just plain ignores or walks on by, is in fact prosecutable as an accessory or obligation of guilt by proxy for knowingly allowing this incident to occur,

There are these laws, and they are a violation of the rights of people they accuse and convict.

so I have to disagree with that statement applying in the circumstances we are discussing here, allowing this or ignoring this is happening, or better termed, knowing this is happening and not doing anything about it, does make you responsible for another's actions when it comes to violating another's civil rights, human rights, and is not a part of the liberties bestowed upon us for being born in this country, but in fact it is because of this ability, or loop hole, to wash one's hands of these responsibilities, so much of these improprieties even exist.


So you're saying that you are in support of one law because of the existence of another equally rights-violating law exists?

For the record, because of the inefficiency and inconvenience that has become apparent, I doubled that post size limit, the initial limit was a default I missed setting when configuring the forum software, my apologies for this inconvenience. I didn't notice it myself because Admins and Mods are excluded from this limitation!

Why is it that every time I post I always run into length limit issues? :-)

I think, Nick, Coppertime's point was not what you covered, but the increasingly self initiated benefits of the newer generation stepping in to replace the previous one, and with each occurrence, due to less restrictions or oversight, have become even more inclined to further get themselves in situations that will reap the greatest degree of power to ensure they are not imposed upon to be held in check,

I know that was the point, which is why I felt it necessary to respond as I did. The point was based on the false premise as you put it "due to less restrictions and oversight." This is false because we've had exactly the opposite; we've had more restrictions and oversight, which is the cause of the power grabs and reaches for personal gain without the consequence.

I will add that your federal funding of banks through printing more, IS a valid result of what is being inferred, you see even though your point to show that deregulation, or not, still results in someone's ability to lose and not pay, but keep what is won, is in fact hurting everybody, and this is exactly what I think was the point, that how they see their positions is not with the ethics and integrity for the big picture to be considered, but just small minds filling big pockets and rationalizing it through spin and subterfuge, and not contributing anything positive to the situation or is done with consideration of what the big picture is and the dominoes they are putting in motion to fall.

I agree, and I would like to clarify that this is the action of the government and the Federal Reserve system, not of the banks.[hr]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you Mr. Coons. Any advertising executive will agree that showing a juicy hamburger or a gooey piping hot slice of pizza on a television commercial will send viewers who are junk-food junkies racing to their cars to get their whopper or pizza hut pizza. The same goes for the sick and slow-minded who pull up photos and videos of children being molested. Both groups, in their frenzy to satisfy a lust will be more likely to act on something that is definately not a good thing. One act will cause obesity and high cholesterol and the other will ruin a life. And noone will be harmed. Right!!!!!!

Who's life is being ruined by someone racing to their computer to view photos, of any nature? If I so chose, I could jump on Google or some other search and look for child pornography. I could probably locate it, drool over it, and do many other obvious things while viewing those images. And in doing so, yes, no one will be harmed.

Most Americans agree that the government has a continuing responsibility to supervise financial institutions and prevent them from engaging in risky lending that could damage the entire economy. Well DUH!

Most Americans agree on many things that are absolutely wrong. Many agree that anti-drug laws stifle drug use, that anti-discrimination laws promote unity, and that minimum wage laws help the lower income. However, all of those beliefs are false, no matter how many people believe otherwise, and the belief in bank regulation is no different. Basing an argument on the number of people that support a claim is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad numerum. A claim is no more true simply because many people believe it.

I see that you've ignored my entire comments about the actual cause of this issue, and instead focused on my use of the word "deregulation". In the commonly-accepted use of the word, you are correct. I should have said that banking has never been "not regulated," (at least not within the past 100 years) as that is what I meant to convey.

Let's imagine there is a dam holding water at 90% its capacity, and there was a small crack in the concrete of the dam (about half an inch in length) which was covered by a bandaid. Then imagine that I removed the bandaid and filled the dam to 150% of its capacity, causing it to rupture. Would you blame the fact that I removed the bandaid? Would you call for more bandaids?

Removing the bandaid has the same effect as the deregulation you mention. Putting it back would be the same as calling for more regulations. In all cases, the bandaid is inconsequential. The one and only cause of the financial crisis is the Federal Reserve's monetary policy (something very few people understand, unfortunately, as this is something politicians tend not to talk about). The manifestation of that such as through the meshing of securities and other assets is only a symptom. If the banking deregulation of 1999 hadn't happened, the monetary policy blunders would have manifested themselves in some other equally-destructive way, and politicians would still be pointing at anyone other than themselves as the cause.

[Kevin]

<SNIP>

Mr. Coons who is a candidate for Congress where such legislation is enacted or revoked holds that possession of child pornography should not be a crime.

If this is your concern, then you need not worry. Constitutionally, this is an issue determined by the states, and I'm running for a federal position.
-------------------------

For your information child pornography, possession - production - and transmission, is covered under federal law.

Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996

Child Pornography Prevention Act 1995 (HR n.a., section 1237)

18 U.S.C. 2256(8)

18 USC 2252 which makes it a federal offence to knowingly receive child pornography. Child pornography is defined as: "any visual depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" involving children" by 18 USC 2252 (a) (2) (A).

See also 18 USC 2251 is also closely related which makes it illegal to advertise child pornography.

There may be more federal statues but this is what five minutes of searching found.[hr]

[quote=Kevin]If a person molested / rapes a child, I say rape because a child must by law not be legally capable of consent, then this is a crime.

I don't agree that consent should be defined by statute, but that's outside of the scope of your point. I do agree with your point that a child cannot consent, and therefore your usage of the term "rape" would probably be correct.
<SNIP>

That consent should be defined by statue , read law, is central to this discussion. The statue your refer to is the commonly called the 'Age of Consent'. In absence of a by law defined age of consent then children would by default be able to consent to having sex with an adult. No adult could be charged with rape by the government as long as the child, of any age, says yes to the adults request to have sex.[hr]

[quote=Kevin]

[quote=Kevin]If the molestation has an audience, who themselves do not touch the child, they are equally guilty by their participation.

If the audience, in part or total, views the molestation via web cam or other transmission they are still equally as the the person who physically committed the criminal act?

I wouldn't agree with that. Each of us is directly responsible for the actions in which we engage. Making the audience responsible for the actions of the rapist is shifting, in part, the responsibility from the rapist (who is infringing on the rights of the child) to the audience (who is infringing on no one's rights).


The responsibility of the rapist is not shifted to the audience. The rapist is still responsible for his / her acts. The audiance is still equally responsible by their own actions of joining the assault as an audience. The relationship between the audience and the rapists is that of the hired killer and their employer. Both participated in the act even if only one physically touched the victim.

Therefore possesion of child pornography must be crime and violations of this just law enforced by the govermnet.

.

[nickcoons]

For your information child pornography, possession - production - and transmission, is covered under federal law.

That's why I was careful to specify "constitutionally," because any laws at the federal level dealing with this issue are unconstitutional.


That consent should be defined by statue , read law, is central to this discussion.

The method by which the age of consent is determined, whether it be an across-the-board age set by statute or some other method, is irrelevant to the conversation. Understanding that a child is not capable of consenting is what's important.

The statue your refer to is the commonly called the 'Age of Consent'. In absence of a by law defined age of consent then children would by default be able to consent to having sex with an adult. No adult could be charged with rape by the government as long as the child, of any age, says yes to the adults request to have sex.

This is the false dichotomy trap that many people fall into. Either the state sets an age of consent, or there is no age of consent; this isn't true. There are potentially other methods of determining whether or not someone has the ability to consent. But again, debating these methods is irrelevant to this particular discussion. The only thing that matters is that we are in agreement that someone must consent to sexual activity, and they must be capable of giving that consent.


The relationship between the audience and the rapists is that of the hired killer and their employer. Both participated in the act even if only one physically touched the victim.


I'm unsure of the hired killer example; I'll have to think that one through. And I see the point you're getting at. In your specific argument about an audience, like hiring a killer, they are paying for something to be done. Likewise, a hiring party for murder is paying for a criminal act before-hand, and the killer is engaging in the act specifically because it was ordered of him, and consideration paid. Whether or not these actions on the part of the hired killer or the audience should carry punishable responsibility is something I'll need to think about.

However, this is a subset of viewing child pornography. If someone possesses photos of child pornography, in most cases the possessor had nothing to do with its creation. So again, possession (the original topic of this thread, if I recall) is not the same as ordering that a criminal act be done and paying consideration for it, as would be the case of an audience coming to see a live demonstration, or of someone hiring a hitman.

[coppertime]

coppertime Wrote:
I wholeheartedly disagree with you Mr. Coons. Any advertising executive will agree that showing a juicy hamburger or a gooey piping hot slice of pizza on a television commercial will send viewers who are junk-food junkies racing to their cars to get their whopper or pizza hut pizza. The same goes for the sick and slow-minded who pull up photos and videos of children being molested. Both groups, in their frenzy to satisfy a lust will be more likely to act on something that is definately not a good thing. One act will cause obesity and high cholesterol and the other will ruin a life. And noone will be harmed. Right!!!!!!
Nick Coons Wrote:
Who's life is being ruined by someone racing to their computer to view photos, of any nature? If I so chose, I could jump on Google or some other search and look for child pornography. I could probably locate it, drool over it, and do many other obvious things while viewing those images. And in doing so, yes, no one will be harmed.

I guess you didn't quite get the point I was trying to make on this one. I didn't mean that a lust filled crazed pedofile would be running to their computer to see pictures and videos of children being molested after seeing pictures and videos of children being molested - I meant that they would be searching for some real-live children to act out the perverted things that they had just been drooling over. You certainly have a right to your opinion that this would harm no one.

[Kevin]

(01-08-2009 08:35 AM)Kevin Wrote: That consent should be defined by statue , read law, is central to this discussion.


Nick wrote: The method by which the age of consent is determined, whether it be an across-the-board age set by statute or some other method, is irrelevant to the conversation. Understanding that a child is not capable of consenting is what's important.
-------------------------------

Kevin replies: The ONLY method is is by a statue of law, anything else make the act legal in that it is not prohibited by law. There is nothing else but this.

Quote:(Kevin) The statue your refer to is the commonly called the 'Age of Consent'. In absence of a by law defined age of consent then children would by default be able to consent to having sex with an adult. No adult could be charged with rape by the government as long as the child, of any age, says yes to the adults request to have sex.


Nick wrote: This is the false dichotomy trap that many people fall into. Either the state sets an age of consent, or there is no age of consent; this isn't true. There are potentially other methods of determining whether or not someone has the ability to consent. But again, debating these methods is irrelevant to this particular discussion. The only thing that matters is that we are in agreement that someone must consent to sexual activity, and they must be capable of giving that consent.

Kevin replies: This is not a "false dichotomy" because only by such statue set by state would consent by a minor be illegal. There is nothing else possible. As for "There are potentially other methods of determining whether or not someone has the ability to consent" , there are not any other "potential" methods possible. And as to "irrelevant to this discussion" it is relevant because lacking and age of consent law the making of child pornography would not be illegal and as such the possession of Child Pornography would also not be illegal. Anyway you introduced this into the thread when you wrote "I don't agree that consent should be defined by statute" indicating favoring removal of the age of consent laws.

[Admin]

I am going to have to go with Coppertime's model on this.....

I think that just as it encourages people to feed their lingual desires the same can be true for CGI's.

Although no one's right were violated in the creation or actual possession of them, just as people go running to Burger King for their whopper, those viewing CGI's will also be inclined to want "more than an image" too, and as is a lock picking class to help people from even being locked out of their home or auto may be perfectly legal, possession of lock picking tools is illegal, although having them violates no one's rights, the potential to perform illegal actions is such, that is it deemed illegal to possess, therefore I put forth that CGI's let alone "REAL" pictures should be illegal for the same potential of active harm upon another's rights should be enough to disallow them from being possessed because like lock picking tools, there is no other reason to possess such materials unless it was to stimulate the potential of, in to a kinetic action of, what is contained in the material. So if there were no child pictorials of any risqué nature, there would likely be less actual incidences of their rights being violated, since the concept will no longer reach as many individuals, who otherwise may never even become aware they have such a desire in the first place, for what ever reason such desires are produced, just as never smelling and tasting a Cinnabon in a mall, would never produce a desire for Cinnabons, never being exposed to the concept of this material, would never produce someone to seek it.
This also responds to Nick's statement (not quoted) about outlawing the product to reduce the demand being ineffective, well the logic of that statement is somewhat valid when it comes to general merchandise and such, but when it comes to things beyond luxury, but instead appeals to one's desires, and mind you lust can apply to food as much as sex, the two are not very different, then you are "tempting" desires that may normally be controllable, just as you or i can just as easily walk by that Cinnabon and not get one....when we already are satiated, but like a starving person even smelling one in an alley dumpster will relish it's taste and find it irresistible because of his hunger, that same concept can also be applied to the sex starved person how sees such material to become overwhelmed with the desire, which like a starving person, turns in to "need" and then follows through actively, to the next opportunity that presents itself to satisfy a need they would never come to have known had they never had the material in the first place, be it CGI or not, it does lend itself to children being violated. Your next response will likely be that well then we should out law guns, or people kill people not guns, so having guns legal and easy to access by anyone should not be considered an issue, but truth be told, yes people kill people, but guns give them an EASY means, and a comfort of distance for which to be used, take that away, I guarantee the number of people who would use a gun, would not so willingly go up to a person face to face to use a knife, does it happen? Yes, and it []i]would[/] happen more if guns were removed from the equation, but....the overall number of deaths would be much lower, for those not having the resolve to do something, requiring the degree of intimacy, using a knife would require!

So answering the thread topic, ALL forms of children in pictures exposing any personal or private areas or performing any unacceptable activities for their age, should be criminal to both possess or distribute, however should someone be brought to trial because of what was found in an unread email box would be wrong, since until it has been read, can they be responsible for it's possession, especially if there is no other material to be found, but instead pursue the source, as goes with most possession incidents, it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis with parameters set to determine the degree of offense and then a proportional sentence be deliver, 18years??? I would say it was overkill and if circumstance depict it, this should not be such an extreme in a very gray area however if it were a repeated offense, then, they knew what they were in for when they once again stepped over the line, but for those stepping over for the first time, is too extreme!

Admin!