@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You still haven't answered the question. If the child depicted is no longer alive; she couldn't possibly continue to need protection.
That's like saying a murder victim must be denied justice because the murder victim is no longer alive. Absurd! Pornographic material is criminalized because it records a crime: the sexual abuse of a minor. The victim is entitled to justice; she is entitled to the protection of the law. That protection includes punishing not only the producers of the depicted crime, but also the distributors and consumers of the depicted crime. I know you don't understand that simple fact, but that is YOUR problem.
Occom Bill wrote: The only thing Ashcroft vs. free speech coalition proves is that the offending image needs to be a real child (as opposed to a computer generated child or a young looking adult). Nowhere does it state that protecting that "real child" is the sole purpose of 2907.323. That stipulation exists only in your imagination. The Supreme Court's decision in Osborne left no doubt that the purpose of 2907.323 is to eradicate child pornography. That a real child need be depicted in said pornography in no way implies, let alone mandates, that protecting that child alone is the sole consideration. That is pure bullshit that exists only in your mind.
Both Osborne and Ashcroft made it clear that pornography is expression that is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Both cases made it clear that the ONLY reason why CHILD pornography may be criminalized is because it records a crime--the sexual abuse of a real life child. Because the State has a compelling interest in protecting VICTIMS of child pornography, the State criminalize not only its production and distribution--but also its possession.
What OTHER purpose/government interest do you suggest the statute serves? Does that purpose/government interest pass constitutional muster? Because your concern that pornography might be misused by pedophiles to seduce children was REJECTED by the Supreme Court. The government cannot ban pornography, nor video games or candy, because the government fears those items might be misused by someone who might commit a crime. The government cannot, consistent with the constitution, "eradicate" whatever it wants just because it wants to. The "eradication" must be necessary to serve a compelling government interest. Thus, your continued song and dance that "the purpose of 2907.323 is to eradicate child pornography" means nothing. It simply begs the question: WHY does the State want to eradicate child pornography?
And there we go back to the beginning: BECAUSE child pornography records a crime: the sexual abuse of a minor.
You keep spinning your tires in the same old tired circle.
Occom Bill wrote:Your argument that the statute requires a specific victim is bullshit in general. It requires only that a real child is depicted, but doesn't even require said child's identification. It matters not at all if that child is still living or dead, because protecting that particular child is NOT the sole purpose of the statute.
We might not be able to identify the child, but the child was abused, and the pornographic material has recorded that crime. That child, whoever he/she may be is entitled to justice--and all persons who facilitated that criminal abuse of a child either by producing the record, distributing the record, or by possessing and viewing the record, may be held criminally responsible.
The fact that people who are prosecuted are being prosecuted for "illegal use of a minor" seems to escape your comprehension. Living, dead, or aged, the victim who was misused in violation of the law is entitled to justice.
Quote:Your imaginative implication that a victim need be present for a crime to take place is nonsense.
How can you sexually abuse a child if the child is not present? The reason why child pornography may be criminalized consistent with the constitution is because it records a crime.
Quote:There are plenty of crimes that assume a societal harm, that are nonetheless not dependent upon a particular victim. Drug possession is routinely prosecuted with NO VICTIM, for instance. That a real child need be depicted
that said real child has to be considered the victim of the offending crime. He who merely possesses child porn has in no way directly victimized the child depicted. He is still prosecuted under 2907.323 regardless of whether or not that child is aware of his possession, or indeed, is even still alive.
The production, distribution, and possession of child pornography isn't one of those crimes that "assume a societal harm." After all, virtual child pornography is legal. So is pornography that uses a 19-year-old girl who looks like a 13-year-old girl. If we assume a societal harm with pornography that uses a real child, why not assume the same with pornography that uses an adult that looks like a child or pornography that uses a virtual child?
The Osborne case TELLS you WHY possessors may be punished. If they weren't willing to possess and view the material, the sexual abuse of the child victim that was recorded for their consumption would not have happened.
Quote:Your assumption that 2907.323 cannot be applied to a 15 year old offender, without calling her a victim is nonsense. That she happens to be the minor depicted, in no way exempts her from prosecution for violating the still applicable offenses under 2907.323. Her image satisfies the requirement that a "real child" is depicted, but the statute in no way attempts to exempt her from prosecution because of it.
I'm not assuming anything. The law itself calls her the victim. The law itself contemplates an offender and a victim. She, the victim, cannot be charged with victimizing herself.
Quote:Watch: A 15 year old boy could legally take a picture of his erect penis without committing a crime. This act alone is no one’s business and he most certainly isn’t a victim. If, however, he sent that picture to a girl in Ohio; he would nonetheless be guilty of violating 2907.323 for creating, possessing and transferring an image that violated the statute.
He cannot be prosecuted under 2907.323 for victimizing himself. On the other hand, if the picture of his erect penis is obscene or harmful to juveniles as defined by law, he can be prosecuted under 2907.31.
Quote:Pretending you're an attorney; pretending the Supreme Court's vividly clear conclusions don't matter; pretending my quoting of applicable Supreme Court precedents constitutes lying; serves mostly to make you look like a fool. Were you correct; the presiding judge would throw the case out of court. Any evidence that this has happened? Of course not.
Absolutely, that Juris Doctor Degree that I have hanging on my wall and all the hours and years of my life that I spend researching the law and helping people means absolutely NOTHING if I'm the fickin' brainless moron that you paint me to be. Apparently, I have no right to enjoy my retirement or to waste my time by posting on a discussion board about anything that I might know something about. I guess, people who post on Able2Know don't have to know anything they're talking about. You've proven that!
But, I'm NOT the one who has misread and misinterpreted the law. That would be YOU, the failed cheesehead restauranteur from Wisconsin.
Occom Bill wrote:Just as in the case of Joe Horn; you misinterpreted the applicable statute based on your emotional, instinctual, response. Legally, you are just as wrong... and this will be demonstrated, again, in due time. Watch.
Joe Horn ran out of his house to shoot two burglars (who were burglarizing the house next door) in the their backs as they were running away. Self defense at its best! I admit that I didn't know that the penalty for burglary was summary execution.
The prosecutor in Ohio misapplied R.C. Section 2907.323. The girl lives in foster care and is virtually helpless. Hopefully, she will have a court-appointed attorney who will give her case more than 2 minutes. But I'm not holding my breath. I'm not confident that justice will be done in this case--not because the law isn't on the girl's side--but because I don't know if she will be blessed with effective assistance of counsel. In that regard, the odds are against her. If you have the name and address of her counsel, send him a link to this discussion. I'm sure he will appreciate your take on the law.
