Should a man go to jail if he's caught with child porn in his house?
- Thread starter Rawisbetter!
- Start date
What would convince me that the accused was deliberately downloading child porn is if it is found in an organized manner on the pc, not just located in the cache or browser history. If the material is found to be categorized by folders in a manner for which the PC would not automatically do, that would be proof enough to convict in my opinion.
Yeah. I thought it was something called hentai or one of those terms. Is there another form of "synthetic child porn"?
Judges.
Child porn because it is exploitation of the child whose pic it is from.
There are many redundancies in the Criminal Code. That may be one of them. It's why I think the Code needs a major overhaul and has for some time.
I know kids of 5 and above that know stuff like "Rambo", "Lolita", "Tarzan", etc. aren't real, let alone cartoons.
Me, too.
we cannot "ban" fire, but we do prevent the sale of very flammable things in large quantities, and insist that curtains and couches be made of flame retardant material.
If my wife and I find images of plants being crosspollinated increasing our desires, should that be banned? If we find the odd skin flick to be helpful in our sexual relationship, should that be banned?
cross-pollination is not harmful to anyone so images are fine by me, although a little weird.
skin flicks... hmm well i'm not really sure what you mean but it seems harmless in your terminology. I think anything that's actually harmful, we should be careful about how it's portrayed.
skin flicks... hmm well i'm not really sure what you mean but it seems harmless in your terminology. I think anything that's actually harmful, we should be careful about how it's portrayed.
A newspaper can be figuratively or literally harmful. A pencil can be figuratively or literally harmful. It depends on the interpretation and what resulted from it.
Um, "skin flicks" is the slang term for "porno" movies.
Um, "skin flicks" is the slang term for "porno" movies.
i was talking about physical harm. figurative stuff... hmm i dont know about that
skin flicks. porn. should not be banned IMO. Most pornographic film is unharmful to those who partake in the filming and those who watch it
skin flicks. porn. should not be banned IMO. Most pornographic film is unharmful to those who partake in the filming and those who watch it
Right. It's a matter of interpretation. It doesn't matter how many laws we have, someone will always find something that the law doesn't pertain to and is objectionable in some way. We need to define the interpretations.
Yes that would be enough for me to vote to convict too. It shows a deliberate intent to download CP.
Regarding depictions:
Even cartoons and drawings like Hentai are technically child porn if they depict children in a sexual act, even though no child was involved in its manufacture. Photoshop-like software could start with an image of an adult and modify it to look like a child. If the result depicted a child in a sexual act, that image would also be child porn.
I have no problem with Canada's child porn law as far as images made from children is concerned. Its reasonable that no one should profit from criminal activity involving children. This is a reasonable limit to free speech.
But the "depicting" part of the law isn't about protecting children, but criminalizing behavior or thoughts which the majority find objectionable. To me this is an unreasonable limit to free speech. I can see why these images should be controlled like other porn or violent images, but not criminal.
What adults do alone or with other consenting adults is none of my business, as long as it doesn't harm individuals or society.
If I was on a jury, I would have a hard time voting to give someone prison time for possessing a cartoon image. In fact I'd be pissed that my time was wasted over something so stupid.
But honestly I've never heard of anyone arrested for possessing a child porn cartoon. The little I know about the cases which have made the news indicate police focus on real child porn resulting from real child abuse, not cartoons based on imagined child abuse, so my concerns about child porn "depictions" is theoretical.
But I've still haven't heard anyone make a convincing argument defending the criminalization of child porn "depictions". I think that one part of the child porn law is unreasonable.
I can see your point but as Gilbert said, it's about interpretation. I dont think anyone would get convicted for possession of a cartoon of someone who appeared to be 14 but wasnt any specified age at all, but i suspect there'd be trouble if a man was found with 3Gb of cartoons depicting the rape of babies. these both come under the same heading but are obviously rather different when it comes to the interpretation stage.
Yes we are talking about two completely different things, yet the law treats both the same. But like I said, most court cases I've read in the news seem to involve what you describe, so likely the Internet Police must exercise judgement.
Surely you're not buying into that self-glorifying, teenage argument that seeks to re-define the meaning of "child porn" as "sexually active teenagers screwing around with a camera".
Yes, teenagers use cell phone cameras in the same way that teenagers used real cameras in the 1930s. That does not mean that teenagers photographing the brilliant realization of their own physical maturation and advent of sexuality is child porn.
Child pornograpyhy involves an unwilling or ignorant victim that is exploited by a third party, and two consenting teenagers screwing around with a cellphone doesn't quite meet the definition of child pornography; much as they would like to think that their photography merits pornographic status.
Should a man go to jail if he's caught with child porn in his house?
In general, no. There was a time when you had to go looking for porn on the Internet. Now it shows up uninvited in your inbox, and if you have a network at home and have configured the router to log incoming traffic (and you should) it'll show porn sites attempting to access your system. I've seen sites listed in my router logs that I know I've never visited. My security software (McAfee Security Center, Spyware Doctor, AdAware, Spyware Blaster) generally blocks them from getting to my PC, but the router logs the attempt. If your system is less secure than mine (and my attitude is paranoia), or you're less diligent than I am in policing your system, you could have porn on your system, you could even be distributing it, and not know it.
And how about a woman? Should a woman go to jail if she's caught with child porn in her house? No again, same reasons.
In general, no. There was a time when you had to go looking for porn on the Internet. Now it shows up uninvited in your inbox, and if you have a network at home and have configured the router to log incoming traffic (and you should) it'll show porn sites attempting to access your system. I've seen sites listed in my router logs that I know I've never visited. My security software (McAfee Security Center, Spyware Doctor, AdAware, Spyware Blaster) generally blocks them from getting to my PC, but the router logs the attempt. If your system is less secure than mine (and my attitude is paranoia), or you're less diligent than I am in policing your system, you could have porn on your system, you could even be distributing it, and not know it.
And how about a woman? Should a woman go to jail if she's caught with child porn in her house? No again, same reasons.
Is Vladimir Nabakov a philosopher or a pedophile?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita
"Eventually, at the end of 1954, Graham Greene, in an interview with the London Times, called it one of the best novels of 1954. This statement provoked a response from the London Sunday Express, whose editor called it "the filthiest book I have ever read" and "sheer unrestrained pornography." British Customs officers were instructed by a panicked Home Office to seize all copies entering the United Kingdom. In December 1956 the French followed suit and the Minister of the Interior banned Lolita (lifted in 1958).
By complete contrast, American officials were initially nervous but the first American edition was issued without problems by G.P.Putnam's Sons in 1958 and was a bestseller, the first book since Gone with the Wind to sell 100,000 copies in the first three weeks of publication.
Today, it is considered to be one of the finest novels written in the 20th century. In 1998, it was named by the Modern Library as the fourth greatest novel of the 20th century and it was named fourth in Time magazine's list of The 10 Greatest Books of All Time.
How's that for a reflection of our times?
It's not a movie ... that's just Hollywood's pedophyliac interpretation of the philosophy, obviously.
So what kind of funny web sites are you visiting that leave you victim to the world wide web of pornography trying to contact you via your email and internet use?
For some funny reason, I don't think female web users are targetted by porn sites ... do you think it might be because most women don't leave an IP trail on pornographic website servers?
If someone has deliberately accessed child pornography, they should be prosecuted. I don't believe that child pornography accidentally plants itself on people's computers while they are reading the news at CNN, FOX and Canadian Content. It's impossible.
Dream on ... if it's on your computer it's because you looked for it.
You're not still going on about taking sex pictures with your 'oh so handy cellphone' ... of you and your girlfriend ... and suggesting that you're going to be prosecuted for child pornography, are you? As an aside, don't you have anything better to do when you're having sex? The bottom line is: are you photographing yourself having sex with a girl because you love her or because you want to show your buddies that you had sex with her ... the latter constitutes a problem.
Cartoons are not child pornography because no one has been exploited. I have to wonder why you want to confuse the definition of "child pornography" according to the law. A cartoon of murder is not murder, but the person depicting the cartoon merits further consideration. A cartoon of sodomizing babies is not child pornography, but it merits further consideration. The person with a sick mind has not necessarily committed a crime (unless your name is Ernst Zundel). Prosecutors are not exercising judgment when they don't prosecute someone, they're exercising judgment when they do prosecute someone.