Gay webmaster jailed on CP charges - someone most of us know

[Squirt]

For the record, I lean against the legitimacy of laws criminalizing the mere possession of child porn images. My first thought is that images constitute speech, and is a different thing from actually doing it. Similar to having documents inciting racism, homophobia, or religious persecution - that's just talking about something, not acting on it.

The reason the mere possession of child porn is punishable has to do with intent to commit a crime, mens rea, and solicitation via the exchange of CP, not people trying to control what others think.

The act of sex with a child is illegal. Sending or receiving images of actual children being victimized is seen as a form of solicitation which, among other things, is the act of enticing, inviting, or urging someone to commit a crime.

Solicitation is considered a specific criminal intent offense in the commission of a crime and when two or more people are knowingly exchanging CP it's conspiracy to commit a crime (i.e. someone provides CP on a site and you visit that site and view/download the content).

Mens rea, (guilty mind) is established with the knowing exchange or ownership of CP as well.

Mens rea and criminal intent are what allows a burglar in your house, who hasn't stolen anything, to be arrested for intent to commit burglary. Conspiracy to commit murder, abduction, etc. etc. are all based on these grounds as well.

I think the laws on ownership and distribution of CP stand on solid ground and aren't based on the "thought police" but more on solicitation and the criminal intent reasons that people own, buy, or trade CP. Do you agree?

[Matt 26z]

There is no valid argument for CP. A crime has to be committed in the first place to make it. The demand for this material from **** consumers is what drives other pedos to produce it, and thus commit a non-CP crime that may not have otherwise taken place. That is the primary argument against CP, and it is a good one.

One thing that requires a bit more thought is when you factor in age of consent. 3/4 of the US and every major country is 16 or 17, assuming the age chart I looked at is correct. Therefore under CP laws you've got one or two ages where it is considered highly illegal to depict something in photos that is perfectly legal to do in real life.

What do you guys think is the reasoning for that? Not that I think the laws should be changed, I just can't think of anything.

[desslock]

Chip/Squirt - I think that you do make valid arguments. Like I said in my earlier wordchoice - "I lean against it".... (yes, it's possible to have an opinion that is not staked firmly into the Earth! hehe)

I just am skeptical, and I know that possession of child porn images can go to a particular sinister motive, but so what? Does my possession of Das Kapital by Karl Marx imply that I am a communist, or that I'm supportive of an armed revolution against the United States government?

Or let me invoke the frustrations we all have about the 2257 law. It is one thing to criminalize filming movies with underage models...... but it is something else to criminalize the failure to maintain records on models which appear in such movies.

Or another well-intentioned but ultimately dumb law - insider trading laws. Martha Stewert talked to her boyfriend about stock that they own, and that is deemed a federal crime? It is one thing to commit fraud (like Enron's executives) but talking about stock that you own is something completely different.

All in all.... we have way too many federal crimes. I'm sure that possessing child porn pics is a crime in Texas, so let Dawgy go through the state process, not the creeky, overcrowded federal one.

Steve

[DonMike]

I just am skeptical, and I know that possession of child porn images can go to a particular sinister motive, but so what? Does my possession of Das Kapital by Karl Marx imply that I am a communist, or that I'm supportive of an armed revolution against the United States government?

I have to disagree with you, Steve. You have the right to own any type of media that contains any type of ideas because these things are not infringing on anyone else's right. However, there is no protection for someone owning pictures where the subject of the picture is being brutalized or harmed, and any situation where there is someone underage having sex with an adult could be extremely harmful to their psyche.

One thing that I find really interesting is that people are being put in jail for these sorts of things, the FBI is going through people's records to make sure all of the models on people's websites are 18 and over and that we have the records to prove it, but go into the bathroom of any Bucco Du Beppo restaurant and the walls are covered with pictures of small children peeing, yes, many of them naked or at least with their genitals exposed. And somehow that deemed socially acceptable.

[Squirt]

I just am skeptical, and I know that possession of child porn images can go to a particular sinister motive, but so what? Does my possession of Das Kapital by Karl Marx imply that I am a communist, or that I'm supportive of an armed revolution against the United States government?

I'm with you. I know exactly where you're coming from here as this can become a very slippery slope even though the current CP laws stand on solid ground.

Our current administration is pushing an invalid anti porn propoganda based on CP fears, as their anti porn propaganda wouldn't hold on it's own merits without the crutch of CP to keep it going.

Again they are using the crutch of fear to effect change that most of America would find unconstitutional if the real basis were unvailed and left to stand on their own merits. Their real motive, of course, being the curbing of legal sexual freedom of expression.

I read something today that is earily similar to something we are experiencing in American society today. Read it and tell me your thoughts:

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

Although his party never won an overall majority in Germany, on 30 January 1933 Hitler became chancellor of a coalition government. Many believed power would 'tame' him, but the descent into the hell of the Third Reich was rapid. By 1938 radicalism, terror, and expansionism had become the norm, and many Germans tolerated the situation - with fear and propaganda being partial explanations for this acceptance.

Hitler sought world domination (he always took war to his enemies, not they to him), and his policies led inexorably to World War Two. His murderous racial and political intentions were always clear, although secrecy sometimes shrouded the precise means of their execution. source

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

Sound familiar?

[desslock]

Squirt -

No. Everybody trots out those old Weimar Republic/Hitler examples to paint a scary picture of whatever is happening at the present time.

Honestly for me I think the "scariest" turn in politics now is the embrace of xenophobia regarding illegal alien fears. But going back to 1930s comparisons.... it was a protectionist Congress (Republicans were mostly high tarrifs/protectionist in those days) that triggered the Great Depression. So right now we are looking at Republicans leaning heavily on anti-immigration and protectionist fears to keep their power.

Unfortunately the alternative Democrats would move in that direction even faster. Their constituency.... unions, oppose cheap labor coming into the country as well. And they would be happy in protecting big American business from those cheap goods from China and services from India.

All in all, it would make the costs of living and doing business a lot higher, and people like TakeMyTaco would have to endure the humiliation of paying even more to get into his local street fair in SilverLake.

Steve

[Squirt]

Damn! And I thought I was the only one to compare Bush to Hitler

I agree about the embracing of xenophobia and protectionism as a means of control.

Steve, if you're not with us, you're against us :heartu:

No. Everybody trots out those old Weimar Republic/Hitler examples to paint a scary picture of whatever is happening at the present time.

Honestly for me I think the "scariest" turn in politics now is the embrace of xenophobia regarding illegal alien fears. But going back to 1930s comparisons.... it was a protectionist Congress (Republicans were mostly high tarrifs/protectionist in those days) that triggered the Great Depression. So right now we are looking at Republicans leaning heavily on anti-immigration and protectionist fears to keep their power.

[desslock]

Damn! And I thought I was the only one to compare Bush to Hitler

Actually I can think of four Presidents who were roundly criticized by their opponents for centralizing executive power and getting the United States mired into foreign wars, trying to exact enlightened change:

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon B Johnson. All Democrats.

There's nothing at all wrong with politics being a forum for competing ideas. And I think with all the money the adult industry has, they could be significantly more proactive in publically advocating the problems with 2257 witchhunts and addressing the constant public flow of misinformation about adult entertainment.

Steve

[Squirt]

There's nothing at all wrong with politics being a forum for competing ideas. And I think with all the money the adult industry has, they could be significantly more proactive in publically advocating the problems with 2257 witchhunts and addressing the constant public flow of misinformation about adult entertainment.

Well there lies the problem. They = us and we aren't doing it. Why?

[DonMike]

Jane you ignorant slut!



Sorry, just wanted to inject a little humor. Please go back to your debate. :curtain:

[Lee]

Anyone know what the outcome of Dawgys court hearing was on Oct 27th?

Havent heard or seen anything posted by anyone in respect of this yet.

I recall he was possibly looking at 5-20 years inside.

Regards,

Lee

[procam]

:morning: Oh the drama~