My older step-cousin just got sentenced

[Dynam0]

Izzy..given how difficult it is to obtain illegal material like this, it goes to show how much disregard for the law someone who downloads CP has...I mean it's not like you just search for torrents or something. You need to do your damned homework, and people who know how explicitly tell you how to be sneaky about it so you don't get caught. It's disgusting.

[Oni-Paranoia]

Originally Posted by choof

"oh hey I enjoy pictures of dead people I can google this all day"

"oh hey I enjoy pictures of sexualized children, I can't google this so let's get more people to make these pictures so I don't have to look as hard"

You can Google that.

How Google and Microsoft are trying to stop people from using keywords that go under the radar, but bring up precise searches.

inb4howuknodatonipedo

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Izzy

You are adding in a whole new variable here. I only mentioned viewing something, not paying for something.

Even viewing it can instigate stalker behavior given the target audience (mentally unstable). I doubt that's not harmful for the child.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Izzy

You are adding in a whole new variable here. I only mentioned viewing something, not paying for something.

Lol... ???

Cost is irrelevant.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Arkuski

Please quote what you think are objectionable posts that I have made

Your Dad.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by choof

Lol... ???

Cost is irrelevant.

It is when it doesn't involve money.

[Arkuski]

Originally Posted by choof

Your Dad.

That doesn't make any sense.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Izzy

It is when it doesn't involve money.

And there are plenty of ways to access questionable content on TOR that are free.

[Charu]

Originally Posted by Arkuski

That doesn't make any sense.

Are you a Poképhile?

...

But in all honesty

Someone in my family was prosecuted for something like this. Except it was 2 years and then another 2 years under heavy probation surveillance. (And I don't think there was any child porn involved) All because of some craigslist offer or whatever, idk, it's someone in my family I don't really know anyways.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Izzy

You are adding in a whole new variable here. I only mentioned viewing something, not paying for something.

You don't think the people who produce child porn are making money from it because there is a demand for it? Whether a given person actually pays for a given piece of child porn or not really doesn't matter. Money is being made by it, and the audience is why more of it gets made.

I assume, on the basis that you can find essentially anything that would be available online for money available for free somewhere, that you could find child porn for free if you went looking. But I also assume that the more shady and illegal and harmful a thing is that you want to see, the harder it is to get it free or anonymously.

[Reincarnate]

(a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of
children for the following reasons: (1) the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects
of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child,
easily passes muster under the First Amendment; (2) the standard of Miller v. California, 413
U.S. 15 , for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child
pornography problem; (3) the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic
motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal
throughout the Nation; (4) the value of permitting live performances and photographic
reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis;
and (5) recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First
Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech
is unprotected. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by [458 U.S. 747, 748] the New York statute, bears
so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is
clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. Pp. 756-764.

(b) The New York statute describes a category of material the production and distribution of which is not entitled to First
Amendment protection. Accordingly, there is nothing unconstitutionally "under-inclusive" about the statute, and the State is
not barred by the First Amendment from prohibiting the distribution of such unprotected materials produced outside the
State. Pp. 764-766.

(c) Nor is the New York statute unconstitutionally overbroad as forbidding the distribution of material with serious literary,
scientific, or educational value. The substantial overbreath rule of Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 , applies. This is
the paradigmatic case of a state statute whose legitimate reach dwarfs its arguably impermissible applications. "[W]hatever
overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which [the statute's]
sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, supra, at 615-616. Pp. 766-774.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/458/747.html

[Dynam0]

[Pseudo Enigma]

If you look at pictures of arkuski is it pedophilia?

[L.B.D.D]

Dickuski

[dAnceguy117]

I think I get what Izzy was trying to say. watching a video doesn't cause direct harm to someone in the sense that watching a video of child abuse once and then watching it a second time doesn't do additional harm, unlike abusing a child once and then abusing the same child again.

it's just a semantics thing. I think Izzy was highlighting the qualifier "direct" there, not condoning a certain act.

*vanishes*

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by devonin

You don't think the people who produce child porn are making money from it because there is a demand for it? Whether a given person actually pays for a given piece of child porn or not really doesn't matter. Money is being made by it, and the audience is why more of it gets made.

I don't think that is really a fair statement to make. You are just lumping everything together when it shouldn't be. They probably make some money initially from somebody and then the VAST majority of others who end up looking at it obtained it for free, and not even through much effort online.

Most of these people probably aren't willing to pay for it and never will. Whoevers cousin in this thread probably didn't pay for it and doesn't deserve 10 years. Whoever created that content has no idea this guy ever viewed it so it does not directly cause more of it.

[Fission]

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

If you look at pictures of arkuski is it pedophilia?

[JohnRedWolf87]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/458/747.html

Why can't they write these things in English?

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by JohnRedWolf87

Why can't they write these things in English?

Because then it can't be ambiguous.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I don't think that is really a fair statement to make. You are just lumping everything together when it shouldn't be. They probably make some money initially from somebody and then the VAST majority of others who end up looking at it obtained it for free, and not even through much effort online.

Most of these people probably aren't willing to pay for it and never will. Whoevers cousin in this thread probably didn't pay for it and doesn't deserve 10 years. Whoever created that content has no idea this guy ever viewed it so it does not directly cause more of it.

We're talking about an illegal good.