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

Really? There is a huge demand for such material. You're the only one disputing it as far as I can see.

You know what is so annoying David is that all the funds going to this is not even lowing the trade in anyway and is just adding to the taxpayers burden of having an ever increasing numbers of our citizens behind bars.

The government could make arrests all day long every day of the year and full the courthouses to overflowing just from the tens of thousands of persons openly repeat openly offering such files for sharing over p2p networks every day.

I guess it great PR to randomly dip into this ocean and pull out a person for a news story ever now and then.

Still it is a crying shame to used so must of the finite resources on such non-violence behaviors instead of aiming those resources more toward the people who are directly abusing children by producing this materials in the first place.

However except by sheer chance they are normally the type that are far harder to find then the fools who are openly sharing the materials.

In a sane world we would fine the hell out of most traders and give the worst of the worst some jail time but not to the point where a person serve less time for raping a child then having a video of someone else doing so.

Since the earliest age that I can remember,
I have been attracted like a magnet to interest
in the operation of the human mind, as a goal in itself.
I LIKE considering this and especially, I like doing so
with people who disagree with me (who r found in great abundance).

OK: remembering back to my childhood,
I simply never connected the ideas of fotografy and sexuality.
We made love in private. The issue of fotografy never arose.
We just did not think of it.
If anyone had fotografed us while making love,
I 'd have wondered: "what the hell is THIS??" the same as if
he did it while we were having lunch.
Bear in mind that, at the time, I had a .38 S&W strapped
onto my right ankle. If I had thought that someone
really WERE violating my rights (e.g., by robbery etc.),
the perp woud have stood a good chance of getting shot.
Considering whether I 'd have objected if someone
had circulated pictures of me in amorous embrace:
I don 't believe that I 'd have minded.
It woud have been worse when I was an adult,
holding a public office (which I prefer not to name).

If someone had approached me offering fees to model
for him: I dunno whether I 'd have been interested. Maybe.
I already had plenty of cash. I already had whatever I wanted.
I had no need to work, tho that woud not involve much work,
but the way u wrote, it seems tacitly implied that something
mystical n horrible is involved with pictures of people making love,
especially if thay r young enuf. I don 't get the point,
neither now, nor woud I have agreed back then.

With all respect and good will, Izzy, to me the prohibitionist
position seems irrational and purely emotional.
I wish that I understood the reasoning against it.
If I 'm lucky: u will explain it to me.
During my childhood, if someone had sold pictures of me
while making love, it woud have been as if he sold pictures
of me selling lemonade by the road (which I never did).
I 'd probably have demanded my cut of the revenue.




How can I listen to that??
I have no access to that information.
To some limited extent, I have heard it.
Years ago, I attended a psychological seminar and workshop
led by Nathaniel Brandon, whose brite mind I admire.
When I was 13, I was socially approached by a girl named Joyce,
with whom I became very obsessed for many years n decades.
Her beauty was so intense as almost to knock me over backward.
She was very elegant, descended of the Austrian aristocracy, her father told me.
She changed her mind and rejected me. I remained obsessed with her.
Years later, I attended the Brandon seminar in hope of relief, solace n nepenthe.

Some of the other attenders told of emotional pain from rapes
or sodomies as children. (No one said anything qua fotografy.)
These remained in painful memory for those victims.
Those r violent crimes and government shud avenge them.

So far as I can understand it, pictures (be thay hand drawn, or fotografed),
the spoken word in prose or poetry, or the written word
r all means of self expression and r none of government's business.
Thay remain BEYOND the reach of government jurisdiction.

I think that its OK for government to KILL convicted perpetrators of sexual violence
(if the law supporting that result existed b4 thay committed the crimes),
but NOT to restrain the verbal nor illustrated expression
of those crimes by them nor by anyone (like Truman Capote In Cold Blood).
After the perps have been killed, their written memoirs shud not be censored (nor b4).
Kill: yes; censor: no.



It seems to me that the same principle of expression,
and freedom thereof, applies to fotografy, to the spoken word
and to the written word. This is part of living in a FREE COUNTRY.
Government can only interfere by USURPING power which has been denied to it.
If and when the judiciary disagrees with me about this or anything,
there is simply nothing that I can do about it, except discuss it.

When usurpation of power is tolerated and accepted,
then we lose LIMITED government and its power becomes unlimited
like Saddam's Iran. I disapprove of that.





David

That surprizes me. I have never met such a person.

Maybe u have sadists in mind ??





David

We're not talking about making love, but abuse. You've got a computer, google 'child abuse victims talk about pornography,' or something like that. Maybe FF can post some links. I'm not going to go looking for it, but I have seen documentaries, and these people are torn up inside that some pervert may be masturbating over images of their abuse. Not only that they're concerned for the children it's still happening to.

I 'll take your word for it.
I have no experience with that.
I 'm very surprized that thay accept the danger to themselves.
What motivates people to DO that??
Y do thay wanna take the risk of imprisonment??????
Its hard to imagine that whatever thay charge for it is worth the risk.

In regard to the customers,
the same question applies: Y risk this danger??

A distinction with out a difference, as according to you types taking pic of a child with erotic intent or viewing a pic of a child with erotic interest is abuse, no matter what the actual pic looks like. This relabeling all such pic "abuse" is the same game that we play with relabeling all sexual boundary problems "sexual assault"...it is the attempt to manipulate the debate through vocabulary.

Why do heroin addicts take heroin?

I have no idea David why anyone would run the risk of having such materials especial in the US where the penalties are so insanely great.

In a way I am of the opinion that the insanely great risk for having such materials is having an reverse affects and for some reason is making having such material even more desirable for some offenders.

That is the reason I approve of the UK CP level system where depending on the level that the photos fall into the penalty can be as light as a police warning.

Oh the child in child porn can be one day below the age of 18 years also.

The supporters of the harsh penalties and the ruin lives and ruins families that results wish everyone to think of young children being abused not a Traci Lord type situation.

Hawkeye it the same with the DUI issue when the word drunk bring to mind a picture of someone that can not walk a straight line or even stand up.

When such a state does not happen at .08 or even 1.0 BAC but at a must higher BAC of around 1.3 or greater.

None of the police cam recorders of DUI stops showing such drunken behaviors is not likely to be of anyone that is close to the legal minimum DUI levels.

.

I take it that when u say "abuse" u mean rape and sodomy, right??
Not pictures like the judge hitting his daughter with a leather strap.
Well, if that had happened to me, and if I had not killed him yet,
I 'd probably want pictures of the perp so that police coud avenge me.





OK. I 'll give it a shot.




Y not?? U sent ME to look for it.



(Next after controlling that, shud government seek to legislate the content of wet dreams??)
This addresses the concept of thought control.
That is the very most intrusive imposition
that government can execute upon the citizenry.
Every person, even the nastiest murderer who is being dragged
to the electric chair or gallows, is and shud be IMMUNE
to government intrusion between his ears. That is sovereign territory.
The horror surpasses ineffability qua the despotism of government
being admitted into this private territory. I saw a refugee from Red China
who described his military experience of the 1950s, when he was required
to carry a pocket diary of his hourly thoughts. He said that his fellows
were commanded not to think of sex; instead to think of the Communist Party.
( I dunno if he coud have escaped punishment, if the commissar had cawt him
masturbating, if he avowed that he was thinking about the Communist Party.)


As I have posted b4,
despite my natural optimism, I think its inevitable
that after everyone in this forum has been absorbed by natural death,
their grandchildren will degenerate into the ultimate despotism
of being a colony creature: the Borg. Thay will welcome it, for its advantages,
such as progressively more ubiquitous cameras r welcomed now.
It will not end with satellite surveillance from above.
It will not end with facial recognition software.
It will not end with subcutaneous low-jack implanted at birth.
It will not end with anything,
but I believe that it morally behooves us to resist that as long as possible.

Mary Shelley coud not have guessed how PROPHETIC she was.

The danger comes from government.
We shud strive indefatigably to degrade,
limit, curtail, strangle & constrict its jurisdiction.
We shud fight for Individualism and for personal liberty
against the collective, with our every breath !

In the end, our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will lose,
as the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto lost, but it will be worth the fight.

I believe that it is a chemical dependency.
I 've never tried it (tho I got morphine in the hospital).

Is that related to our discussion ?





David

Obviously my position is that those who believe that they have the right to decide for me what words come out of my mouth can **** off...

It was in response to you asking why people risked viewing child pornography, the same reason people risk taking heroin, it's a compulsion.

What comes out of your mouth is usually **** anyway.

U know, Izzy, I believe that u r factually incorrect on this point,
in that if a poporazzi (sp??) such as the fellow who fotografed Jackie O.
nude on her Greek island, used his telefoto lens to take pictures of people below 18
in fully normal sexual intercourse, a very severe prison sentence coud result from that.

Its like there is a very emotional, logic-free, sentiment
that sexuality is bad, especially if a person is below voting age;
even nudity while alone is bad, if a person is below 18.

I don't like seeing my fellow citizens and holders of public office
relinquishing and rejecting objective logic.

It seems to me, that living in ". . . the Land of the Free . . ." when I was a child,
if had decided to raise funds by selling pictures of myself
and girlfriend while we were making love,
that is our private business; no one need buy them against his will,
and I 'd resent any interference by any government into my business.

I 'd question jurisdiction (which I ofen did about other things).





David

In the UK the age of consent is 16, but is not to stop children from experimenting but to protect them from adults. A 17 year old boy who has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend will be viewed very differently from a 30 year old.

Well, actually, I was questioning the accepted danger
of offering it for sale, as Bill described,
altho I imagine that the same risk applies to merely looking at it,
as it did to the fellow on the plane.

It blows my mind that we can deem ourselves to be living in a FREE COUNTRY
if we can be imprisoned for felony for merely LOOKING at something.

That is an oxymoronic contradiction-in-terms.

Surely under the US Constitution, any American citizen
can freely and safely cast his gaze in any direction.
To say otherwise is no better than Orwell's 1984.
It is only cherry picking which criteria will apply to cause the result.





David

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/child_pornography/

Profile of Users
There is no one type of Internet child pornography user, and there is no easy way to recognize an offender. Having a preconceived idea of a child sex offender can be unhelpful and prove a distraction for investigating police.[22] Users of Internet child pornography:

•are not necessarily involved in hands-on sexual abuse of children. It is not known exactly how many people may access child pornography on the Internet without ever physically abusing a child. Before the Internet, between one-fifth and one-third of people arrested for possession of child pornography were also involved in actual abuse.[23] However, the Internet makes it easy for people who may never have actively sought out traditional forms of child pornography to satisfy their curiosity online and this may encourage casual users. Looking at the relationship from the other direction, those convicted of sexually abusing children will not necessarily seek out or collect child pornography, with one study putting the number of offenders who do so at around 10 percent.[24]The term child molester covers a wide variety of offenders, from serial predators to situational offenders who may not have ingrained sexual interest in children.
•may come from all walks of life and show few warning signs. In fact, users of child pornography on the Internet are more than likely to be in a relationship, to be employed, to have an above average IQ, to be college educated, and to not have a criminal record.[25]Those arrested for online child pornography crimes have included judges, dentists, teachers, academics, rock stars, soldiers, and police officers.[26] Among the few distinguishing features of offenders are that they are likely to be white, male, and between the ages of 26 and 40, and may be heavy Internet users to the extent that it interferes with other aspects of their lives.[27]

A Psychological Typology
Sexual attraction to children is known as pedophilia.[28]However, an interest in Internet child pornography may be best thought of as falling along a continuum rather than in terms of a hard and fast distinction between pedophiles and non-pedophiles. People can behave very differently on the Internet than they do in other areas of their lives. Interacting anonymously with a computer in the safety of one’s own home encourages people to express hidden thoughts and desires.[29] Offenders vary in the strength of their interest in child pornography, as well as in the level of severity of the pornographic image to which they are attracted. From a psychological perspective, based on a typology of general pornography users,[30] the following categories of Internet child pornography users are suggested:

1.Recreational users: They access child pornography sites on impulse, out of curiosity, or for short-term entertainment. They are not seen to have long-term problems associated with child pornography use.

2.At-risk users: They are vulnerable individuals who have developed an interest in child pornography, but may not have done so had it not been for the Internet.

3.Sexual compulsives: They have a specific interest in children as sexual objects and seek out child pornography.
An Offending Typology
Variations among offenders translate into different patterns of Internet behavior. Offenders vary in the level of their involvement in Internet child pornography, the degree of networking in which they engage with other offenders, their expertise in employing security strategies to avoid detection, and the extent to which their Internet behavior involves direct sexual abuse of children. The following typology of child pornography offending has been suggested:[31]

1.Browsers: Offenders who stumble across child pornography but knowingly save the images. They are not involved in networking with other offenders and do not employ security strategies to avoid detection. Their browsing is an indirect abuse of children.

2.Private fantasizers: Offenders who create digital images (e.g., through morphing) for private use to satisfy personal sexual desires. These offenders do not network with other offenders, do not employ security strategies, and their private fantasies are an indirect abuse of victims.

3.Trawlers: Offenders who seek child pornography on the web through open browsers. They may engage in minimal networking, but they employ few security strategies and their trawling is an indirect abuse of victims.

4.Non-secure collectors: Offenders who seek child pornography in non-secure chat rooms (i.e., chat rooms that do not employ security barriers such as passwords) and other open levels of the Internet. They are involved in relatively high levels of networking, and, by definition, do not employ security strategies. Their collecting behavior is an indirect abuse of children. Because of the non-secured nature of their activities, there are limits to the number and nature of the images they can collect.

5.Secure collectors: Offenders who are members of a closed newsgroup or other secret pedophile ring. They engage in high levels of networking and employ sophisticated security measures to protect their activities from detection. Their collecting behavior is an indirect abuse of children. Because they occupy hidden levels of the Internet, they have access to a wide range of images. They may engage in obsessive levels of collecting, which not only involves amassing huge numbers of images, but also carefully cataloging and cross referencing them. As with other types of collections, they may expend considerable effort in obtaining rare and highly prized images. The collection may become an end in itself.

6.Groomers: Offenders who develop online relationships with children and send pornography to children as part of the grooming process. Grooming involves direct abuse of children. They may or may not be involved in wider networking with other offenders, but their contact with children exposes them to risk of detection. The child may tell someone about the relationship, or the offender may be unwittingly communicating with an undercover police officer.

7.Physical abusers: Offenders who sexually abuse children and for whom an interest in child pornography is just part of their pedophilic interests. They may record their own abuse behaviors for their personal use, in which case, from a legal standpoint, the possession of pornography is secondary to the evidence of their abusive behavior that it records. They may or may not network. By definition, a physical abuser directly abuses victims and his security depends upon the child’s silence.

8.Producers: Offenders who record the sexual abuse of children for the purpose of disseminating it to others. The extent of their networking varies depending on whether they are also distributors. Again the producer’s direct abuse of the victim compromises his security.

9.Distributors: Offenders involved in disseminating abuse images. In some cases they have a purely financial interest in child pornography. More often, offenders at any of the above levels who share images may be classified as distributors. Thus, the extent of a distributor’s networking, his level of security, and whether he engages in direct abuse of children depends upon the level at which he is operating.

Print This GuideOrder Bound CopyDownload PDF GuideDownload Ebook GuideShare This Guide The Problem of Internet Child Pornography
Effects of Child Pornography
Understanding Your Local Problem
Responses to the Problem of Internet Child Pornography
Appendix A: Key Terms and Concepts
Summary of Responses
Endnotes
References
Related POP Projects
Glossary

Isn't the protection of children more important that the perverted desires of paedophiles?