17
   

Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

 
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 03:31 am
@hawkeye10,
Alot has to do with up-bringing.

18 to me is not a child, rather nieve if not taught the wonders of how sexuality and men and women work and what to take into consideration.

Let's not take non note of 6,7,8..

Thanks.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 03:43 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
Let's not take non note of 6,7,8..



And lets not note that currently we are ringing up people for harming children without bothering to prove that they have harmed children...because THAT would be too much trouble.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 04:18 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Man will always protect children


THAT is not what we do, we lash out at those whom we fear might on day harm children.


Rubbish, we lash out at those who do harm children. Viewing child pornography harms children. As long as your fantasies stay locked up in your head there is no problem.
0 Replies
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 04:21 am
@hawkeye10,
Let's take note .

Where are you emotions I know they are there.

Like I said, quit with wrongful law, I have agreed that emotions make that law non existant so lets say 50/50.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 10:49 am
@firefly,
Quote:
As usual, dumb BillRM is ignorant regarding the laws...Any realistic appearing computer generated depi
ct

Too bad that the courts had rule otherwise and as if no children are being harm why should it be illegal just because most of us find it distasteful we should lock up people for years?

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075

Supreme Court strikes down ban on virtual child porn

By The Associated Press

04.16.02

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child pornography today, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in sex.

The 6-3 ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition is a victory for both pornographers and legitimate artists such as moviemakers, who argued that a broad ban on simulated child sex could make it a crime to depict a sex scene like those in the recent movies "Traffic" or "Lolita."

The court said language in a 1996 child pornography law was unconstitutionally vague and far-reaching.

The court majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, found two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act overly broad and unconstitutional.

"The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction," Kennedy wrote for himself and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to agree with the outcome.

The law was challenged by a trade association for pornographers.

The law barred sexually explicit material that "appear(s) to be a minor" or that is advertised in a way that "conveys the impression" that a minor was involved in its creation.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor partially agreed with the majority and partially disagreed. She was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia. Rehnquist and Scalia also filed their own separate dissenting opinion that went further.

"The aim of ensuring the enforceability of our nation's child pornography laws is a compelling one," Rehnquist wrote for the pair. "The (law) is targeted to this aim by extending the definition of child pornography to reach computer-generated images that are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct."

The law was Congress' answer to then-emerging computer technology that allowed the computer alteration of innocent images of real children, or the creation from scratch of simulated children posed in sexual acts.

The law was an expansion of existing bans on the usual sort of child pornography. Congress justified the wider ban on grounds that while no real children were harmed in creating the material, real children could be harmed by feeding the prurient appetites of pedophiles or child molesters.

The Free Speech Coalition, the pornographers' trade group, said it opposes child pornography but that the law could snare legitimate, if unsavory, films and photos produced by its members.

The group did not challenge a section of the law that banned the use of identifiable children in computer-altered sexual images.

A federal judge upheld the law, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in December 1999 that the challenged provisions violated the Constitution's free-speech guarantee.

The appeals court said the government did not show a connection between computer-generated child pornography and the exploitation of actual children.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeals court, finding that the law would ban images that are not obscene as the court has previously defined that term. Neither obscenity nor child pornography involving real children is protected by the Constitution's free-speech guarantee.

The Clinton and Bush administrations defended the law in court, claiming it "helps to stamp out the market for child pornography involving real children."

This case is one of two dealing with children and pornography that the court considered this term. The other, which the court has not yet decided, tests the constitutionality of a separate law governing children's access to sexually explicit material on the Internet.

Update

High court rejects child-porn law that 'turns the First Amendment upside down'
Analysis Decision joins court’s 1997 ruling in Reno v. ACLU as major landmark in the development of the Internet as a forum for free expression. 04.17.02

Previous



firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 12:10 pm
@BillRM,
You persist in disregarding factual legal information which has been posted in this thread, and, for that reason, you continue to make untrue and uninformed statements.

Either you are unable to understand the information which has been posted, or you have no regard for the truth. In either case, your disregard for existing laws renders your comments meaningless.

You are choosing to disregard the fact that in 2003 Congress passed the PROTECT Act which does make illegal virtual images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct--and possession of such images is punishable as child pornography.
Quote:
From the PROTECT Act statute:

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

Quote:
why should it be illegal just because most of us find it distasteful...

Because, beyond being distasteful, it can have harmful effects.
Quote:
On the other hand, in support of the criminalisation of virtual child pornography firstly is that virtual images are used in the grooming process with real children. It is accepted that part of the grooming stage of the cycle of abuse may be to show children pornography and help normalize sexual activity. This means that this kind of photos can be use by predators in the process to achieve their purpose which is nothing else than abusing the real children. An FBI study in 1998 showed that 81 percent of violent sexual predators deliberately used kiddy porn in the planning of their crimes. Furthermore this research shows many pedophiles have acted on their fantasies creating while viewing kiddy porn. Lifting the ban on virtual photos therefore not only will allow pedophiles to fantasize but will often lead to attempts of actual abusing real children.
http://cylaw.info/?p=41

Why would you want to help normalize adult sexual activity involving children? Wouldn't realistic virtual child pornography have that effect if it was allowed to circulate freely and was, therefore, considered to be "acceptable"?

You keep saying you prefer the U.K. laws on child pornography, but, are you aware that virtual child pornography is illegal in the U.K.?

In June 2009 the U.K. Ministry of Justice extended the national Hotline to enable the public to report online non-photographic visual depictions of the sexual abuse of children, meaning that the public can report images that are generated by computer, of the sexual abuse of the children.
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 available at http://www.iwf.org.uk/hotline/the-laws/non-photographic-child-sexual-abuse-images/coroners-and-justice-act-2009

Quote:
Child porn in cartoon style - man convicted
Sep 26 2008
by Gareth Lightfoot
Evening Gazette

A MAN who downloaded “Tomb Raider”-style pictures of computer-generated child pornography has been convicted by a Teesside jury.

Robul Hoque had sophisticated realistic images of children on his hard drive seized by police in October 2006.

The unusual case involving computer graphics is thought to be the first of its type and an important test case.

Hoque, 32, told the Gazette: “I haven’t set out to break the law in any way, shape or form.

“If I’d had any sort of inkling these were illegal, I would have told the police about them myself. I don’t go looking for child porn. I’m not attracted to kids. I’m not interested in kids.”

He denied making nine indecent “pseudo-photographs” of a child, charges dating back to July and August 2006.

After just under two hours’ consideration yesterday, a jury unanimously found him guilty on six counts, and cleared him of the remaining three at Teesside Crown Court.

Jurors were told they should convict if they concluded that a picture looked like a photo.

“It is about child pornography,” prosecutor David Brooke told the court.

He said the computer in Hoque’s Middlesbrough home revealed thousands of cartoon-like images, some crude, some sophisticated.

“Perhaps the equivalent you’ll have seen is something like Lara Croft - Tomb Raider.

“These computer-generated images are intended to look as realistic as possible. As technology’s moved on, they’ve become more realistic.”

Much of the material was not illegal, but Hoque was charged over nine specific still images. “Although they are not genuine, they appear to be a photograph,” said Mr Brooke.

He said two of the images were entirely computer-generated. The other seven contained parts of photographs in the backgrounds.

In a police interview, Hoque admitted downloading the images but denied being interested in child pornography.

After the verdicts, Judge Peter Bowers adjourned sentencing until October 16.

Unemployed Hoque, who looks after his elderly mother and had no previous convictions, was bailed. He will be registered as a sex offender.

Outside court Ray Savage, a forensic computer analyst for Cleveland Police who has worked in the field for 13 years, said: “To my knowledge this is the first case of its kind.

“This certainly in my experience has been a test case.

“They are part photographs and part computer graphic. It’s a mish-mash of the two.

“Nationally, I can’t think of a case where this combination has taken place.”

He said such cases previously involved cutting, pasting and merging of photos.

“Though no actual child has been abused, it helps to feed the demand.”

Hoque, of Hardwick Road, South Bank, did not give evidence in his trial. He told the Gazette he came across the material through an internet search and became curious about comic-style pictures.

“I assumed they were legal,” he said. “I assumed that everything was above board and OK. It was there in the public domain.

“I haven’t been anywhere near any of that stuff since.”

Harry Hadfield, Cleveland Crown Prosecution Service advocate and hi-tech crime specialist, gave charging advice in the “singularly unique” case.
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2008/09/26/child-porn-in-cartoon-style-man-convicted-84229-21906841/


Quote:
why should it be illegal just because most of us find it distasteful...

So, would you like to make sexual abuse of animals legal? Should the family dog be fair game for sexual abuse?

How about making necrophilia--sexual abuse of dead human bodies--legal?





BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 05:47 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
So, would you like to make sexual abuse of animals legal? Should the family dog be fair game for sexual abuse?

How about making necrophilia--sexual abuse of dead human bodies--legal?


And in fake computer child porn who is anyone hurting not one child not one animal and not one dead body!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come on you can do better then that or are you for locking up people who own movies showing actors being "kill" or rape also!!!!!!!!

Oh good luck the next time a case of fake CP being punish as real CP come before the SC once more.

Sorry you had loss all your moral high ground in punishing people with years in prison for having fake CP.

We might need those cells for people who harm real humans or even real animals for that matter.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 07:19 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry you had loss all your moral high ground in punishing people with years in prison for having fake CP.

So, does that mean you've lost your professed affection for the U.K. child pornography laws? Laughing

Even virtual child porn promotes sexual activity between children and adults. And, as my last post noted, it can be used by pedophiles for "grooming" victims and to "normalize" sexual assaults and molestations by adults in a child's mind.
And it might contribute to actual sexual acting out with real children in the same way that regular child pornography would.

Why do you think the European Union has banned it?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 06:06 pm
@firefly,
You going to have one interesting police state Firefly if anything that someone even claimed might promote criminal behaviors should be outlaw with insanely harsh punishment for even owning.

Interesting road you wish us to take let see own a DVD showing people who steal cars for a living in a favorable light and off to prison you go as that promote stealing cars.

Same thing with owning mob movies showing mobsters in a favorable light so off to prison you go and so on.

Sorry I know you wish to live in a society where no desire you do not share is legal but even desires that most of us find highly distasteful should not be punish unless it harm someone else.

Getting your sexual kicks off of fake CP does not harm anyone even indirectly and claiming you should be able to lock people up for them owning it for years under the theory that it might promote real child abuse is as insane as imprisoning someone for owning the movie Gone in Thirty Seconds, a car stealing movie.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 06:34 pm
@BillRM,
You don't half talk a load of crap. You may well believe it, doesn't stop it being crap though.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 07:06 pm
@BillRM,
For someone who claims to have never seen child pornography, how do you know that it doesn't go beyond merely being "distasteful"?

And why are you addressing your comments to me? Am I responsible for the PROTECT Act in the U.S.? Am I responsible for the ban on virtual child pornography in the U.K.? Try sticking to the topic for a change.

You seem unable to address the legitimate issues and reasons that virtual child pornography is banned. I mentioned some of them, but they seem to have gone over your your head.

Why do you think the European Union has banned virtual child pornography? Do you even know?

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 11:02 pm
@firefly,
It's an obvious case of cognitive dissonance.

It would go something like this:

1. BillRM believes himself to be a good person.
2. BillRM likes kiddie porn.
3. Therefore, kiddie porn must not be evil.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 11:26 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
2. BillRM likes kiddie porn.


Says who?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 02:42 am
@hawkeye10,
Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature. It's inconceivable that someone uninterested in such material would make such a song and dance about it. Just because he's not been caught bang to rights doesn't mean he's not guilty.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 03:05 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature


That leaves you out.....you remind me a lot of dlowen, someone who has spent too much time with the dregs of humanity and as a result has become warped. What has made you so crotchety and hateful towards humans?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 03:55 am
@hawkeye10,
I'm a jolly chap, but I believe protecting children is more important than indulging the desires of sexual preditors. You remind me of Terry Fuckwit.
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Terry_98765c_2108251.jpg
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 04:24 am
@firefly,
Firefly are you still trying to claim that anyone who would dare to disagree with you on the subject of CP as someone who must own the materials?

Does that include a large numbers of federal judges who had similar problems with the CP laws as I do?

All those judges including the ones on the SC who throw out the first fake CP law that came before them are pedophiles with secret hoards of CP in their chambers?

You can be a laugh riot at tines.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 12:49 pm
@BillRM,
What's obvious is that you don't seem to understand why virtual child pornography is banned by the European Union.
You act as though everyone who finds such material totally unacceptable is doing so without good reason. A great many people want this material banned, and they have banned it, and you show no ability to understand why they feel that way, or to evaluate the reasons they feel that way. Why is this material banned in the U.K.?
Quote:
Does that include a large numbers of federal judges who had similar problems with the CP laws as I do?

The judges have no problem with the laws. Some judges have problems with the sentencing guidelines, but those are not the laws.
And most judges, if you read their comments before they pass sentences, describe child pornography in much stronger language than merely calling it "distasteful" as you do.

So, your general attitudes toward child pornography are not supported by judges.


firefly
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 12:56 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
someone who has spent too much time with the dregs of humanity

That would be anyone who has spent a lot of time in threads, like this one, with you and BillRM.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 01:03 pm
@firefly,
Well said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Internet and The Porn Industry - Question by Sglass
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/21/2014 at 06:01:49