DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: 7StringedBeast on August 03, 2011, 02:28:22 PM
-
https://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/03/us.child.porn.ring/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Washington (CNN) -- More than 50 members of a child pornography ring who engaged in what authorities describe as "horrific" and "unspeakable" crimes have been arrested for sexually exploiting children from 12 years old to as young as infants.
Top federal law enforcement officials say agents busted the global online pornography ring following an intense international investigation that began in 2009. The ring, based in the United States, reached across five continents and 14 countries.
Seventy-two members of the online site called Dreamboard have been charged in the United States. Officials said 52 of them have been arrested in the U.S. and abroad. The identities of the remaining 20 are unknown at this time.
An additional 10 individuals were arrested abroad on charges from other countries.
"In order to become part of the Dreamboard community, prospective members were required to upload pornography portraying children under 12 years of age or younger," said Attorney General Eric Holder at a Justice Department news conference. "Once given access, the participants had to continually upload images of child sexual abuse in order to maintain membership. The more content they provided, the more content they were allowed to access. Members who created and shared images and videos of themselves molesting children received elevated status and greater access," he said.
What particularly horrified investigators were "super-hardcore" posts that involved adults having violent sexual intercourse with "very young kids" who were being subjected to both physical and sexual abuse.
Holder said, "Some of the children featured in these images and videos were just infants and in many cases, the children being victimized were in obvious and also intentional pain, even in distress and crying, just as the rules for one area of the bulletin board mandated. They had to be in distress and crying."
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, "To give you an example of the scope of this forum, the capture and analysis of the forum revealed that the board may have been the vehicle for the distribution of up to 123 terabytes of child pornography, which is roughly equivalent to nearly 16,000 DVDs. ... Additional media recovered from the targets arrested in the United States alone has been found to contain over one million images of child pornography."
About 600 men belonged to the members-only online bulletin board, which has now been taken down. Authorities said the site encouraged and rewarded members who sexually abused young children and made them cry.
"As alleged, Dreamboard had strict rules and a rigid hierarchy. Its membership was tightly controlled by the group's administrators," Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer told reporters. "Applicants to the group were required to upload quote nude or hardcore child pornography to become members and members were required to continue posting additional images every 50 days or risk expulsion. Moreover, members could increase their status based on their level of commitment to the enterprise. From member, to VIP, to Super VIP, to the most elite status of all, Super VIP Dot. Only those members who produced their own child pornography could be granted the status of Super VIP Dot," Breuer explained.
"The members of this criminal network shared a demented dream to create the pre-eminent online community for the promotion of child sexual exploitation but for the children they victimized this was nothing short of a nightmare," Holder said.
One Justice Department investigator who asked not to be identified because of the ongoing probe said, "Dozens of young children were directly victimized," some of whom had been identified by agents working the case.
Of the five "administrators" who managed the online community, one was arrested in Canada and another in France. The three others have not yet been identified by agents following the case and remain at large.
"Operation Delego" was spearheaded by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
John Morton, the head of ICE, said the day marked a law enforcement "success" but was nonetheless a "sad" day because of the nature of the crimes involved.
"There are days in this job where it's hard to separate great success from great sorrow and today is such a day. It's a day of great success because we've brought an end to one of the worst instances of Internet child abuse ICE has ever investigated. ... It's a day of great sorrow because this case is ultimately a tale of the perverse and often violent exploitation of children, very, very young children to satisfy the dark pleasures of a group of adult men," Morton said.
The law enforcement effort has been quietly unfolding in stages during the past few months. Four of the individuals arrested have already pleaded guilty, and all received sentences of more than 20 years in prison. Those sentenced are from Illinois, Alabama, Florida and Kentucky.
Those arrested outside the U.S. were picked up by officials in Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Hungary, Kenya, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Qatar, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland.
Holder said, "It's hard for me to imagine that there will ever be a penalty that could appropriately deal with this kind of conduct. Twenty to 30 years that the people have gotten in the past is, from my perspective, barely sufficient to handle what they have done in damaging the lives of these young people."
-
Sounds like some real nice people.
A couple of points. For one thing, I tend to assume that cops will always overstate the details of the crimes they stop, and prosecutors doubly so. I'd be willing to bet that, while certainly detestable, what they stopped probably wasn't as uniformly evil as they claim.
Another thing, why is this within the scope of DHS? ICE? A lot of people, myself included, said all along that there's no way that if you create an organization with this much power, there's no way they're going to stop at protecting us from foreign threats. Kiddy porn rings are popular busts and low-lying fruit, so people will cheer this expansion of power. Drugs will certainly be one of their foci, as well. See where this is going?
-
I don't think that article was using hyperbole at all. Everything in that article is horrifying. The fact that a community that large with the guidelines they had existed so long is really sick. There is no downside to catching these lowlifes.
-
I'd be willing to bet that, while certainly detestable, what they stopped probably wasn't as uniformly evil as they claim.
What you just read doesn't seem "uniformly evil" to you? Or perhaps I just don't understand the point you're trying to get across here.
-
that was a very sad and disturbing read
-
They described a hierarchy with 600 people. Do you really think that all 600 of them were actually banging children? It's easy to make that implication because none of us have any way of knowing what these guys were actually up to. What they state are the worst cases they find, which were pretty damned heinous. That doesn't mean that the majority of them were up to this behavior. It means that at least one was. I'd be willing to be that if you really dug into the goings on, what you'd find is a small minority of child-rapists, and a bunch of hangers-on. These are two very different breeds of scumbags.
-
....I see what you're driving at, but I disagree. Being involved in this at all, no matter what degree to it you're involved in, is disgusting.
-
I think you may have missed the part where they had to post pictures of themselves harming children sexually, or be disbanded from the group. It was a pay to play, so to speak, type of deal.
I don't know if evil even correctly defines what was going on with that forum.
-
I think you may have missed the part where they had to post pictures of themselves harming children sexually, or be disbanded from the group. It was a pay to play, so to speak, type of deal.
I don't know if evil even correctly defines what was going on with that forum.
From what I read you just had to post any child porn to get on the site. And the more you posted, the more you could see, while the most hardcore of which were posting abuse pics though all were encouraged to.
-
All you had to do was post pictures. In order to gain Super VIP Dot status, you needed to post porn of you and another kid. Not saying either is right. Just saying something.
-
Ah ok I must have understood it wrong. Still, to go along with that site, and belong to a community where that shit was going on and praised is almost as equally fucked up.
-
Adults are not supposed to have sexual attraction to children. What they did is horrendous and a crime. They deserved to get what's coming to them. End of story.
-
Ah ok I must have understood it wrong.
And that's kind of my point. Since none of us will ever know how that little corner of the internet works, it's easy for them to lead us in any direction they want. They're not saying that they busted 15 child rapists and 585 child pornographers. That's not as newsworthy.
Still, to go along with that site, and belong to a community where that shit was going on and praised is almost as equally fucked up.
Fucked up, yes, but a million miles away from equality. As I've said in the past, there's a huge difference between being an actor and being an observer.
-
Adults are not supposed to have sexual attraction to children. What they did is horrendous and a crime. They deserved to get what's coming to them. End of story.
Enter El Barto. Cue argument about predisposition to what one finds sexually arousing and prosecution of thought crimes. :biggrin:
Personally, while I do think there are some good points to be made on that side, the protection of creators and purveyors of child porn is very, very low on my list of concerns.
Authorities said the site encouraged and rewarded members who sexually abused young children and made them cry.
Despite the grim subject matter, anybody else find this wording funny? Something about the horrible "sexually abused young children" supposedly exacerbated with the relatively tame "and made them cry" struck me as strange. :lol
-J
-
Enter El Barto. Cue argument about predisposition to what one finds sexually arousing and prosecution of thought crimes. :biggrin:
Personally, while I do think there are some good points to be made on that side, the protection of creators and purveyors of child porn is very, very low on my list of concerns.
-J
Yeah, I'm just a sucker for a good argument that doesn't involve economics and/or Jebus. :lol
Though to be fair, I think protection might be overstating my intentions a bit. And, predisposition was never one of my points. Thought crimes are more my concern.
-
Enter El Barto. Cue argument about predisposition to what one finds sexually arousing and prosecution of thought crimes. :biggrin:
Personally, while I do think there are some good points to be made on that side, the protection of creators and purveyors of child porn is very, very low on my list of concerns.
-J
Yeah, I'm just a sucker for a good argument that doesn't involve economics and/or Jebus. :lol
Though to be fair, I think protection might be overstating my intentions a bit. And, predisposition was never one of my points. Thought crimes are more my concern.
Hmm, though I realize that little can be done to fix the mind of a sicko and if they are kept in a position in life where they are completely unable act upon their disposition, fine and dandy, then. Though, still, horrendous that they turned out like that. But, the second they act upon aforementioned disposition, well, THAT is unforgivable.
-
Barto, I'd point out that 70 something people were charged out of the 600+ members. Maybe those 70 something were the hardcore super posters?
-
Ah ok I must have understood it wrong.
And that's kind of my point. Since none of us will ever know how that little corner of the internet works, it's easy for them to lead us in any direction they want. They're not saying that they busted 15 child rapists and 585 child pornographers. That's not as newsworthy.
Even if we use your numbers, the 585 child pornographers should at very least be in jail for a very long time.
And maybe I'm losing my patience and rationality, but why aren't they just executed? It's not like Traci Lords where she made everyone think she was 18 then came out about lying about her age.
-
And, predisposition was never one of my points. Thought crimes are more my concern.
Ah, must have been somebody else who made that point in the past. Possibly me, I don't know. :lol At any rate, I consider the two to be tied together in this case.
I definitely think you're right about the article emphasizing the worst of the crimes and leaving it ambiguous as to how many were actually involved in the absolute worst of the stuff, and to what degree. Common practice, it seems.
-J
-
Ah ok I must have understood it wrong.
And that's kind of my point. Since none of us will ever know how that little corner of the internet works, it's easy for them to lead us in any direction they want. They're not saying that they busted 15 child rapists and 585 child pornographers. That's not as newsworthy.
Even if we use your numbers, the 585 child pornographers should at very least be in jail for a very long time.
And maybe I'm losing my patience and rationality, but why aren't they just executed? It's not like Traci Lords where she made everyone think she was 18 then came out about lying about her age.
Are you suggesting that the people who sexually molested infants be executed? Or everyone who looks at naked pictures of any body under the age of 18?
-
Enter El Barto. Cue argument about predisposition to what one finds sexually arousing and prosecution of thought crimes. :biggrin:
Personally, while I do think there are some good points to be made on that side, the protection of creators and purveyors of child porn is very, very low on my list of concerns.
-J
Yeah, I'm just a sucker for a good argument that doesn't involve economics and/or Jebus. :lol
Though to be fair, I think protection might be overstating my intentions a bit. And, predisposition was never one of my points. Thought crimes are more my concern.
Are you meaning that looking at naked pictures of someone under the age of 18 isn't an actual crime because there wasn't any physical crime?
-
Are you suggesting that the people who sexually molested infants be executed? Or everyone who looks at naked pictures of any body under the age of 18?
People who sexually molest infants should be executed in any world with decency, yes. Maybe it would be practically hard to implement this, which is fine, but I'd like it if they could.
As for the second part, I wasn't clear. Once you hit the 14-18 range, a lot of ambiguity kicks in. The age of consent in PA is 16 for example, which I don't think is a bad thing. My mind is blown by the stupidity and avarice necessary to charge a teenage with child pornography charges because he had phone sex with his girlfriend.
But when you're actively participating in a forum dedicated to raping children, even if you aren't actually raping the children, why do I want you to be alive? I don't even care if you want to look at fake child porn. Some people are sick. But when you don't have the switch that keeps you from actually raping children or being involved in an operation dedicated to it, I can't even look at you like a human being.
-
Ok, so people who actively rape infants should be executed.
I don't agree, but it's a lot less insane than "anyone who looks at any underage porn should be shot". Carry on.
-
You still believe that there should be punishment for that, though, right?
-
You still believe that there should be punishment for that, though, right?
For raping infants? of course.
Looking at pictures without actively harming anyone? No.
-
Enter El Barto. Cue argument about predisposition to what one finds sexually arousing and prosecution of thought crimes. :biggrin:
Personally, while I do think there are some good points to be made on that side, the protection of creators and purveyors of child porn is very, very low on my list of concerns.
-J
Yeah, I'm just a sucker for a good argument that doesn't involve economics and/or Jebus. :lol
Though to be fair, I think protection might be overstating my intentions a bit. And, predisposition was never one of my points. Thought crimes are more my concern.
Are you meaning that looking at naked pictures of someone under the age of 18 isn't an actual crime because there wasn't any physical crime?
I hate to make blanket statements like that, but yes.
-
Do you feel that not making CP a crime would reduce the pedophilia rate? Because that's the only reason I'd say would validate its legalization. And I very heavily doubt it would reduce the pedophilia rate.
-
Do you feel that not making CP a crime would reduce the pedophilia rate? Because that's the only reason I'd say would validate its legalization. And I doubt it would reduce the pedophilia rate.
It would probably have no affect on the pedophilia rate. Why would it that be a necessity to make it legal? Are you only in favor of legalizing drugs if it limits the amount of drug users?
-
I'm not the most sensitive guy myself, but this article just made me sad. The emotional harm caused by whatever terrible abuse has been done is irreversible, and as such, I can't think of a horrible-enough punishment for these men. However, giving them the 'benefit of the doubt' would cast them as clinically skrewed in the mind, which is a problem for all of us.
-
It would probably have no affect on the pedophilia rate. Why would it that be a necessity to make it legal? Are you only in favor of legalizing drugs if it limits the amount of drug users?
Um, I'm in favor of legalization of all drugs, because stupid people will do cocaine and that sorta shit if they want to, legal or not, and I want an end to be put to the crime scenes/cartels that have been allowed to flourish as a result of these drugs being illegal. I couldn't give a fuck about how many people are addicted to cocaine. Their decision.
I guess I should of rephrased it: I'd only be in support of legalizing CP if it would lead to a massive reduction in predators/molestations.
-
If you legalize child pornography, then there's a market for it. And how do you fulfill that demand except by... making it? Zero percent chance it's a good idea.
-
So, in other words, the legalization of CP would do nothing to decrease the amount of predators/molestations?
If that is what you're affirming, then, I am quite content with CP being illegal and see no reason at all for it to be legal.
-
If you legalize child pornography, then there's a market for it. And how do you fulfill that demand except by... making it? Zero percent chance it's a good idea.
Non-sequiter. It exists regardless of market demand.
Personally, I don't think it would effect the rates of molestation either way. There might be some newbs who see such content and decide to act on it, and there might be others who are content to get their rocks off in front of their computer rather than with a real kiddo. I suspect the two would offset.
-
So, in other words, the legalization of CP would do nothing to decrease the amount of predators/molestations?
If that is what you're affirming, then, I am quite content with CP being illegal and see no reason at all for it to be legal.
That's my opinion at least.
Even though it's currently illegal, I don't really see why using Photoshop to bring all of your sickest desires to life is an issue. No one is being harmed by it. But actually child porn involves actual children, so anything that can decrease the cost of it is worth it. Drugs are a different issue because they primarily involve direct harm to yourself. And even in regards to that, I'm all for Meth being as illegal as possible.
-
Drugs are a different issue because they primarily involve direct harm to yourself. And even in regards to that, I'm all for Meth being as illegal as possible.
Wait a sec, (Okay, this is not about naked children, but anyways), so you'd rather have the violence surrounding the meth trade around than let some dumb-asses become addicted and die, even though they'd of become junkies regardless of its legality? Please explain.
-
Are you meaning that looking at naked pictures of someone under the age of 18 isn't an actual crime because there wasn't any physical crime?
I hate to make blanket statements like that, but yes.
Is there a certain age in your mind where it becomes somewhat odd for to gain pleasure from looking at a naked person? Or are you okay with any pleasure from looking at anyone, of any age, naked? At what point does it become something you consider immoral or illegal?
-
Well, different cartoon character here, but, I'd say that 16-18 is the absolute lowest age I would consider moral to look at sans clothes. And honestly, 16-17 would be really pushing it it. Because, really, how mentally mature is your average high school upperclassman/lady?
-
Drugs are a different issue because they primarily involve direct harm to yourself. And even in regards to that, I'm all for Meth being as illegal as possible.
Wait a sec, (Okay, this is not about naked children, but anyways), so you'd rather have the violence surrounding the meth trade around than let some dumb-asses become addicted and die, even though they'd of become junkies regardless of its legality? Please explain.
Two issues with Meth:
- It makes the users more violent towards others.
- Meth labs straight up explode in a killing people around them way.
Maybe I'm mis-reading this. For all I know Meth labs would go away if it were legal, but based on the consequences of Meth, I'd rather have the illegal drug trade. By legalizing any drug the demand for it will increase. In the case of meth, that's frightening.
-
One could argue that alcohol has similar effects. There are people who become extremely violent when drunk and end up committing acts of violence. And obviously, the drinking and driving thing. So, really, I don't see how meth could be handled too much differently from alcohol.
Also, ever heard of the Prohibition?
-
Drugs are a different issue because they primarily involve direct harm to yourself. And even in regards to that, I'm all for Meth being as illegal as possible.
Wait a sec, (Okay, this is not about naked children, but anyways), so you'd rather have the violence surrounding the meth trade around than let some dumb-asses become addicted and die, even though they'd of become junkies regardless of its legality? Please explain.
Two issues with Meth:
- It makes the users more violent towards others.
- Meth labs straight up explode in a killing people around them way.
Maybe I'm mis-reading this. For all I know Meth labs would go away if it were legal, but based on the consequences of Meth, I'd rather have the illegal drug trade. By legalizing any drug the demand for it will increase. In the case of meth, that's frightening.
Meth labs exist because it's illegal. Sure, some might exist, but right now meth labs exist because using those chemicals is the only way the illegal drug makers can produce meth. Meth is very easy to safely produce, but it being illegal stops it from being safe and easy.
-
One could argue that alcohol has similar effects. There are people who become extremely violent when drunk and end up committing acts of violence. And obviously, the drinking and driving thing. So, really, I don't see how meth could be handled too much differently from alcohol.
Also, ever heard of the Prohibition?
Dude, come on. Of course I've heard of prohibition. But you're trying to compare meth and alcohol, which I don't think is reasonable.
-
Are you meaning that looking at naked pictures of someone under the age of 18 isn't an actual crime because there wasn't any physical crime?
I hate to make blanket statements like that, but yes.
Is there a certain age in your mind where it becomes somewhat odd for to gain pleasure from looking at a naked person? Or are you okay with any pleasure from looking at anyone, of any age, naked? At what point does it become something you consider immoral or illegal?
Well for one thing, what I consider somewhat odd and criminal are two very different things. Hell, I think it's odd that half the girls out of Hollywood are considered hot.
Secondly, age is inconsequential as far as I'm concerned. If a person gets his jollies off looking at old people, fat people, barn yard animals or children is of no consequence to me. When a person harms another, then it becomes a concern. A person who harms a child, whether he videotapes it or not, should be punished (severely). A person who get's off on the naughty pictures shouldn't be punished anymore than the guy who watches security camera footage of a homicide on the evening news. Like I said earlier, actor vs. observer.
-
Well for one thing, what I consider somewhat odd and criminal are two very different things. Hell, I think it's odd that half the girls out of Hollywood are considered hot.
Secondly, age is inconsequential as far as I'm concerned. If a person gets his jollies off looking at old people, fat people, barn yard animals or children is of no consequence to me. When a person harms another, then it becomes a concern. A person who harms a child, whether he videotapes it or not, should be punished (severely). A person who get's off on the naughty pictures shouldn't be punished anymore than the guy who watches security camera footage of a homicide on the evening news. Like I said earlier, actor vs. observer.
Okay so we've covered the aspect of the person viewing the child pornography... But now from a different perspective, what about the person responsible for taking the pictures/video of the naked person and using them for financial gain? I know you stated harm, so is the photography of a child harmful? Do you think children can consent to their picture to be taken and used like that?
-
I can't speak for El Barto, but we seem to have agreed on a good amount so far. Personally my main form of justice is harm reduction. At this point the age of a child should be considered. Taking pics of a 4 year old naked taking a bath probably isn't doing any psychological harm because they have no idea what's going on. However, there's no way they could even possibly consent to that and I believe the photographer should be punished in some way. Someone taking a picture of a 14 or 15 year old? Nah. Those kids can consent. Will they regret it later? Probably, but such is life. However the ones taking pics of actual harming a child? Yes, they should be punished.
-
And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?
-
Um, make it so the only CP production allowed is minors over an age deemed mature enough taking pictures of themselves?
I must say, that is a very difficult question to answer. I tried my best.
-
I think it's odd how much we idolize 18 as "being an adult." It's an arbitrary age, don't know what kind of history it has, but it's still completely arbitrary.
Someone taking a picture of a 14 or 15 year old? Nah. Those kids can consent. Will they regret it later? Probably, but such is life.
What's even bat shit crazier, is if a 15 year old girl takes a picture of herself and send it to her boyfriend, her boyfriend could be in trouble for possessing child pornography.
-
And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?
The same way we ban murder but allow people to look at pictures of it.
Are there people out there jerking off to pictures of mutilated corpses? Yup. Should those people go to jail? Nah.
-
What's even bat shit crazier, is if a 15 year old girl takes a picture of herself and send it to her boyfriend, her boyfriend could be in trouble for possessing child pornography.
Boyfriend??? They'll charge the girl with molesting herself and manufacturing KP! :rollin
Well for one thing, what I consider somewhat odd and criminal are two very different things. Hell, I think it's odd that half the girls out of Hollywood are considered hot.
Secondly, age is inconsequential as far as I'm concerned. If a person gets his jollies off looking at old people, fat people, barn yard animals or children is of no consequence to me. When a person harms another, then it becomes a concern. A person who harms a child, whether he videotapes it or not, should be punished (severely). A person who get's off on the naughty pictures shouldn't be punished anymore than the guy who watches security camera footage of a homicide on the evening news. Like I said earlier, actor vs. observer.
Okay so we've covered the aspect of the person viewing the child pornography... But now from a different perspective, what about the person responsible for taking the pictures/video of the naked person and using them for financial gain? I know you stated harm, so is the photography of a child harmful? Do you think children can consent to their picture to be taken and used like that?
Now this is actually an interesting point. Adami's probably right. I'd consider it much like the Erin Andrews affair. That guy shouldn't be allowed to profit from vid taken without her consent, and I suppose the same should be said for anybody else.
However:
And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?
I see no reason why the two need be mutually exclusive. Allowing the possession of something needn't automatically validate it's production.
-
What's even bat shit crazier, is if a 15 year old girl takes a picture of herself and send it to her boyfriend, her boyfriend could be in trouble for possessing child pornography.
Boyfriend??? They'll charge the girl with molesting herself and manufacturing KP! :rollin
I thought this might be true, but it seemed too insane to spew without having a good memory of it...
-
And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?
The same way we ban murder but allow people to look at pictures of it.
Are there people out there jerking off to pictures of mutilated corpses? Yup. Should those people go to jail? Nah.
The problem with not punishing the mere viewing of CP is that it would incentivize the further production of it. And CP is, unlike murder, almost a "white collar" crime, in that it leaves little trace. When you murder someone you end up with a giant mess and it will very likely screw you up as the perpetrator too, meaning a request for photos of it is hardly going to spur any production. CP is much less scarring for the perpetrator and leaves no trace other than the photos, so a demand for them will much more likely egg someone on to do it.
BTW, way back when ogrejedi still posted here he was a proponent of legalizing CGI CP, kinda as a "methadone" of CP. I think the reality is that a certain percentage of society will have this drive, it would be interesting if somebody ever did a study whether CGI CP relieves the urge and lowers the crime rate, or whether it eggs on people to have the "real deal".
rumborak
-
Well that article started my day on a depressing note, that's absolutely disgusting.
-
i
BTW, way back when ogrejedi still posted here he was a proponent of legalizing CGI CP, kinda as a "methadone" of CP. I think the reality is that a certain percentage of society will have this drive, it would be interesting if somebody ever did a study whether CGI CP relieves the urge and lowers the crime rate, or whether it eggs on people to have the "real deal".
rumborak
I've spoken to people who like lolicon/shotacon but find actual CP disgusting and are not attracted to real children. I've also spoken to people who fantasize about doing the same things they see in images like that in real life. I see it as the same as rape porn...no one was actually raped, but someone pretended to be raped or an artist drew someone being raped...and someone who gets off to that may find the actual idea of rape appalling or might wish they had the balls to do it in real life. Does stuff like that ease some of those people's 'urge' to commit an actual crime? Probably. Does it encourage some people to commit such crimes now that they have a taste for it? Probably.
Either way, it comes down to thought crime and a debate that has been had 10000 times.
-
I dunno dude, I couldn't say either way whether it would encourage them, or relieve the urge enough for them to stop trying the real thing. I think it can go both ways. I for one (and I doubt I'm the only one here) enjoy looking at certain porn that I however have no real desire to partake in. So, looking at something doesn't always spur the desire to also do it.
Then again, the stuff I look at isn't illegal, so I guess I know that I *could* have it if I really wanted it. That often quells the desire to actually do it. Especially the Dreamboard thing seemed to partially float on the thrill of its illegality.
I always assumed that CP appears magically in the ether through dubious channels, and then there's an anonymous consumer base. That Dreamboard actually encouraged people to create that stuff.
rumborak
-
I'm not sure of what kind of effect it would have either...the point is that we can't be prosecuting someone for doing something that might inspire them to commit a crime...that's thought crime.
I'll even say that watching actual child pornography should be illegal. Period. Watching it creates a market for it, which means that real children are suffering somewhere. A drawing of a naked little girl should be legal, as long as there wasn't a model :P
-
I think this event brings the fact that this stuff is being made every day by people, for people all of the time, right in our faces. I feel like the overall mentality of this board is, oh CP is ok if you just look at it. And people don't fully conceptualize where it came from. I feel like watching it and not reporting it to the authorities is an illegal act in its own right. This behavior just let's this sort of thing persist.
I think every single person on that board should be held to the highest accountability for letting that go on. At any time, any member of that board could have reported the atrocious abuses going on, but they did not. It's like 600 people saw a murder happen and no one said a damn thing about it to anyone. Disgusting.
I don't see how anyone can have any sense of leniency for the members of that community.
-
Okay so we've covered the aspect of the person viewing the child pornography... But now from a different perspective, what about the person responsible for taking the pictures/video of the naked person and using them for financial gain? I know you stated harm, so is the photography of a child harmful? Do you think children can consent to their picture to be taken and used like that?
Now this is actually an interesting point. Adami's probably right. I'd consider it much like the Erin Andrews affair. That guy shouldn't be allowed to profit from vid taken without her consent, and I suppose the same should be said for anybody else.
However:
And there in lies the issue. How do you allow the viewing of child pornography while banning its creation?
I see no reason why the two need be mutually exclusive. Allowing the possession of something needn't automatically validate it's production.
Well I'm glad you found some part of my questioning interesting lol I guess my thoughts behind it are like this: you can grow some marijuana, but you cant use it or sell it. How does that make sense at all? What would be the purpose of creating child pornography, if not for its intended use - profit from pleasure. Or if you limit the creation, it only creates a black market for those things that are not allowed, like we have currently. Really I see no way to allow for the viewing while banning or limiting its creation.
-
I think this event brings the fact that this stuff is being made every day by people, for people all of the time, right in our faces. I feel like the overall mentality of this board is, oh CP is ok if you just look at it. And people don't fully conceptualize where it came from. I feel like watching it and not reporting it to the authorities is an illegal act in its own right. This behavior just let's this sort of thing persist.
I think every single person on that board should be held to the highest accountability for letting that go on. At any time, any member of that board could have reported the atrocious abuses going on, but they did not. It's like 600 people saw a murder happen and no one said a damn thing about it to anyone. Disgusting.
I don't see how anyone can have any sense of leniency for the members of that community.
That, sir, is an interesting argument which I hadn't considered. I do see a couple of problems with it, though. For one thing, obviously it was reported. In cases like this, they're going to observe and participate for quite some time to gather evidence and round up more people to bust. It wouldn't surprise me at all if one of the original members of their little group was the first cop to infiltrate. Quite frankly, I suspect that a very large percentage of people involved in the KP underworld are LEA. I've always thought it amusing that the number of fake, horny 14 year old girls in chat rooms greatly outnumbers the real ones. :lol
The other problem is of course Kitty Genovese, or any other example of good people ignoring a bad thing. There are plenty of reasons why it happens, and rarely to we feel the need to prosecute people for it. Now, I'm obviously not calling these guys good people (except for the sarcasm in my first post). I'm merely pointing out that their inaction doesn't necessarily make them as vile as the actors.
-
Well I'm glad you found some part of my questioning interesting lol I guess my thoughts behind it are like this: you can grow some marijuana, but you cant use it or sell it. How does that make sense at all? What would be the purpose of creating child pornography, if not for its intended use - profit from pleasure. Or if you limit the creation, it only creates a black market for those things that are not allowed, like we have currently. Really I see no way to allow for the viewing while banning or limiting its creation.
There's already an illicit market, and it's not related to profit. The people who create it are doing it because they get off on it. Regardless of it's legal state, that won't change. The question here is whether or not you go after the people who actually commit these acts, or the people who download it after the fact. Part of my concern is that the latter is much easier than the prior, but nowhere near as harmful. Rounding up a "massive underground kiddy porn ring" gets you on the national news. Busting Mr. Peterson down the block for feeling up little Jenny barely gets you in the newspaper.
-
Not much to add to the debate going on but just to one of the original points, I highly doubt that this article is "exaggerating" it. If anything, I feel like stuff related to child porn or abuse goes too much the other way. "They were obviously and intentionally in pain or distress". Do you think that begins to capture what this stuff is really like? I don't really think that reading that lets us understand at all, and is the just the opposite of exaggerating how bad it is. Obviously we can never really know since it is literally illegal to show anyone the type of stuff they are dealing with, and I don't think people would really want to show or to be shown it, even despite morbid curiousity.
-
Not much to add to the debate going on but just to one of the original points, I highly doubt that this article is "exaggerating" it. If anything, I feel like stuff related to child porn or abuse goes too much the other way. "They were obviously and intentionally in pain or distress". Do you think that begins to capture what this stuff is really like? I don't really think that reading that lets us understand at all, and is the just the opposite of exaggerating how bad it is. Obviously we can never really know since it is literally illegal to show anyone the type of stuff they are dealing with, and I don't think people would really want to show or to be shown it, even despite morbid curiousity.
I agree completely here. I can't even imagine how horrifying a video of a child being harmed like this would be. The line "They were obviously and intentionally in pain or distress" paints a very ugly picture and they hardly go into detail. I mean jesus no matter what, it boils down into child rape.
-
Well I'm glad you found some part of my questioning interesting lol I guess my thoughts behind it are like this: you can grow some marijuana, but you cant use it or sell it. How does that make sense at all? What would be the purpose of creating child pornography, if not for its intended use - profit from pleasure. Or if you limit the creation, it only creates a black market for those things that are not allowed, like we have currently. Really I see no way to allow for the viewing while banning or limiting its creation.
There's already an illicit market, and it's not related to profit. The people who create it are doing it because they get off on it. Regardless of it's legal state, that won't change. The question here is whether or not you go after the people who actually commit these acts, or the people who download it after the fact. Part of my concern is that the latter is much easier than the prior, but nowhere near as harmful. Rounding up a "massive underground kiddy porn ring" gets you on the national news. Busting Mr. Peterson down the block for feeling up little Jenny barely gets you in the newspaper.
I guess I just view it is if you can catch the users of the material, you can trace back to who actually created the material. There in catching the person taking pictures of children, that I think you and I both agree shouldn't be legal because they aren't really able to consent as an adult would.
-
Well I'm glad you found some part of my questioning interesting lol I guess my thoughts behind it are like this: you can grow some marijuana, but you cant use it or sell it. How does that make sense at all? What would be the purpose of creating child pornography, if not for its intended use - profit from pleasure. Or if you limit the creation, it only creates a black market for those things that are not allowed, like we have currently. Really I see no way to allow for the viewing while banning or limiting its creation.
There's already an illicit market, and it's not related to profit. The people who create it are doing it because they get off on it. Regardless of it's legal state, that won't change. The question here is whether or not you go after the people who actually commit these acts, or the people who download it after the fact. Part of my concern is that the latter is much easier than the prior, but nowhere near as harmful. Rounding up a "massive underground kiddy porn ring" gets you on the national news. Busting Mr. Peterson down the block for feeling up little Jenny barely gets you in the newspaper.
I guess I just view it is if you can catch the users of the material, you can trace back to who actually created the material. There in catching the person taking pictures of children, that I think you and I both agree shouldn't be legal because they aren't really able to consent as an adult would.
I don't think there's any correlation between the downloaders and the actors. Like I said, the cops are already downloading every single bit of CP they can to find such occurrences of abuse, and more power to them. Finding unrelated people who download it is a waste of resources, IMO.
-
Well they go after people who download it because those people are often involved in trading with others. Since it's illegal there are circles of people who pass this stuff around. Unfortunately someone I know's uncle was caught doing this sort of thing. They found him through other people. So going after the downloaders does eventually lead to someone who makes it.
-
I feel like the overall mentality of this board is, oh CP is ok if you just look at it.
I have no idea how you get this notion. That, I'm pretty sure, is a minority view here.
rumborak
-
I feel like the overall mentality of this board is, oh CP is ok if you just look at it.
I have no idea how you get this notion. That, I'm pretty sure, is a minority view here.
rumborak
I just feel like people tend to defend the people who just look at it like its not a big deal. I'm not saying people like to do it personally, they just don't see other people doing it as that big of an offense. I just feel like there is a lot of leniency.
-
I think it's more of an attempt to keep the discussion about the topic rational, and especially not let raw emotions dictate what is an actually reasonable stance on it. Public media is so intent on creating gut feelings on the issue, it's hard for many people to rationally look at the issue.
rumborak
-
I think the guy reactions are usually pretty rational when it comes to this sort of thing.
-
I think the guy reactions are usually pretty rational when it comes to this sort of thing.
But you yourself had misinterpreted what happened based on those gut reactions caused by their reporting.
-
I think the guy reactions are usually pretty rational when it comes to this sort of thing.
But you yourself had misinterpreted what happened based on those gut reactions caused by their reporting.
No I just misread the article.
-
I'm sorry, are some of you suggesting that people will rape and abuse children simply because there's a market for it?
No. The people who are MAKING child porn are making it because it satisfies them sexually. They might be more prone to uploading it or something if people want it, but it's the idea of watching CP being legal probably won't cause more children to be abused as I doubt it's a free market deal.
I mean I doubt anyone says "Man....I'm really not attracted to 5 year old's................but there seems to be a market for it, so I better rape my niece and video tape it".
-
They make the child porn and give it out because its a community thing. It's encouraged among the community. They trade it. If they make some for other people, those other people will then in return, send them some new stuff back. That's how it works and how it grows.
And yes, if there are people wanting this stuff, people will make it. It won't make good people all of a sudden do it, cause that's an absurd notion. But it will encourage people who have thought about it to do it, or people who rape children to go ahead and film it and post it online.
I mean the article clearly states this was going on. People were encouraged and respected when they went out committed the act and filmed it. So why is there even any doubt that this shit goes on. They just got caught doing that exact thing.
I don't understand why people have such a hard time believing child porn is an actual problem and people are sick enough to go out and create it for other people.
-
They make the child porn and give it out because its a community thing. It's encouraged among the community. They trade it. If they make some for other people, those other people will then in return, send them some new stuff back. That's how it works and how it grows.
And yes, if there are people wanting this stuff, people will make it. It won't make good people all of a sudden do it, cause that's an absurd notion. But it will encourage people who have thought about it to do it, or people who rape children to go ahead and film it and post it online.
Obviously, I disagree with your entire premise there, and there's no need to belabor a point which we're not going to agree on. One thing I will comment on is the last part. Considering that the overwhelming majority of child abuse goes unreported, wouldn't it benefit the victim if the asshole responsible were to create and share evidence with anybody interested in seeing it? It seems to me that the average victim isn't going to drop a dime on her father, but plenty of people have gotten busted because KP brought attention to the case to the authorities.
-
Are you saying that CP is justified because it might get people caught? And I don't know why you disagree with my premise. There is enough evidence out there to show that CP gets traded around and there is a community dedicated to making it for others. I don't see what is so hard to see about that. That's how they eventually get caught.
-
Are you saying that CP is justified because it might get people caught? And I don't know why you disagree with my premise. There is enough evidence out there to show that CP gets traded around and there is a community dedicated to making it for others. I don't see what is so hard to see about that. That's how they eventually get caught.
And if those communities didn't exist, even less child abusers would get caught.
-
Are you saying that CP is justified because it might get people caught? And I don't know why you disagree with my premise. There is enough evidence out there to show that CP gets traded around and there is a community dedicated to making it for others. I don't see what is so hard to see about that. That's how they eventually get caught.
And if those communities didn't exist, even less child abusers would get caught.
So now you are saying that the fact that this sort of thing happens is a good thing because it eventually can lead to people getting caught? How callous can you possibly get?
-
Are you saying that CP is justified because it might get people caught? And I don't know why you disagree with my premise. There is enough evidence out there to show that CP gets traded around and there is a community dedicated to making it for others. I don't see what is so hard to see about that. That's how they eventually get caught.
And if those communities didn't exist, even less child abusers would get caught.
So now you are saying that the fact that this sort of thing happens is a good thing because it eventually can lead to people getting caught? How callous can you possibly get?
Off topic, I can be very callous.
But on topic, if these abuses are going to happen either way, wouldn't you prefer more people getting caught? Or is the idea of someone watching it SO horrible to you, that you'd rather that the actual abusers go unpunished?
-
It all depends on whether one see the boards' effect to be more production of CP or not. If it doesn't, yeah, then of course boards like those are a good way of catching criminals. If it *does* increase production of CP, one can argue that the lessening effect of catching the criminals is offset by the increase in production.
rumborak
-
Also, one thing that I thought of...
If you realize how much porn is out there, it wouldn't take that much effort to stay in the community. 7SB keeps talking about how they keep making more and more and more and it's wrong because they keep making more and more and more, but how many of these dude, out of 600, actually go out of their way to do the nasty stuff. 16,000 DVDs. That is an insane number. Pretend there was an adult site like this, I could send a new porn clip in every day for the rest of my life, and nothing would happen.
Personally, I am a proponent of making sure those who make and continue the stuff to be caught and stopped, but are we really to judge who should get their rocks off on who? Especially if no one is hurting anyone else.
-
It all depends on whether one see the boards' effect to be more production of CP or not. If it doesn't, yeah, then of course boards like those are a good way of catching criminals. If it *does* increase production of CP, one can argue that the lessening effect of catching the criminals is offset by the increase in production.
rumborak
It's really easy to say "The free market demands that an increase in viewership in CP creates a demand which in turn creates more child porn", but is there anything to back it up? Or are we back to gut feelings?
-
Are you saying that CP is justified because it might get people caught? And I don't know why you disagree with my premise. There is enough evidence out there to show that CP gets traded around and there is a community dedicated to making it for others. I don't see what is so hard to see about that. That's how they eventually get caught.
Well, Rumborak and Adami have nailed it. I personally don't see any direct correlation between the viewers and the actors. I'm personally of the opinion that anybody who would fuck a five year old for money or the respect of their peers would be just as interested in doing it for free. Since I don't think the demand increases the supply, then I'd just as soon see the people who do abuse children get themselves busted.
-
It all depends on whether one see the boards' effect to be more production of CP or not. If it doesn't, yeah, then of course boards like those are a good way of catching criminals. If it *does* increase production of CP, one can argue that the lessening effect of catching the criminals is offset by the increase in production.
rumborak
It's really easy to say "The free market demands that an increase in viewership in CP creates a demand which in turn creates more child porn", but is there anything to back it up? Or are we back to gut feelings?
That's really the biggest problem. Any of those discussions are completely without any hard data to back it up.
rumborak
-
Why would supply and demand just magically not work for CP. Howcome it applies to everything else in the world but not CP? That's just ignorant to think that way imo.
-
Because the supply is created independently of the demand.
-
Because the supply is created independently of the demand.
That isn't true. You are just saying that despite any evidence. Such as a recently busted 600 person community thriving off the uploads of others. Why do you still ignore the fact that CP is often made for other people? That's also how this person's uncle got caught in the middle of unscrupulous activities. It has everything to do with sharing. All these people watching CP perpetuates the idea of it and therefore the physical product existing.
-
Do you really think that any of the active abusers in that 600 member community raped children only to gain the acceptance of others? That's insane. Like I said before, anybody who's going to commit such an act is going to do it because they have an interest in it. If they share their videos with other like-minded people afterward, that's a different mindset.
-
Since I don't think the demand increases the supply, then I'd just as soon see the people who do abuse children get themselves busted.
Although this may be true, I have trouble straight up accepting the notion that CP is actually "good" in a way because it allegedly doesn't change the amount of child abuse and instead just helps the authorities catch the abusers. Mostly because I can't think of a remotely analogous situation to which it can be compared for reference.
-J
-
Do you really think that any of the active abusers in that 600 member community raped children only to gain the acceptance of others? That's insane. Like I said before, anybody who's going to commit such an act is going to do it because they have an interest in it. If they share their videos with other like-minded people afterward, that's a different mindset.
It's not ONLY to gain acceptance, but also to gain acceptance. But that whole mentality is fueled by the community atmosphere. The community gives them a stage. If there is a stage, performers are going to perform. Take away the captive audience and they won't feel as driven to do what they do. If that community wasn't promoting the creation of child porn, I do believe that members may not have made at least some of the material that they did. If you don't think that community fueled all that creation, I think that is pure insanity. 16,000 dvds worth of material. That's at least 16,000 hours of this shit. You think people would be making that quantity if they knew no one else would ever be seeing it?
The bottom line is, its pretty obvious that community drove those people to produce more and more. It was accepted and encouraged. Barto, I would think you especially would see how people can be convinced to do these things to gain some kind of self importance.
CP creators do not just make it for themselves. If that were so, there would be none floating around. This shit gets made and released. It's like a computer virus. The people who make them release them, they don't just sit there and infect their own computers just to feel good about themselves.
-
They might not create the CP for themselves, but the abuse itself is strictly self-motivated. That's the distinction. And keep in mind that tons of people videotape their sexual escapades with no intention of releasing it to the public.
And funny you brought up the 16000 dvd's part, because I was just typing this up:
Another thought occurs to me. At this point I will reiterate that I'm not criticizing this bust. I'm sure plenty of the people rounded up deserve every bit of what will happen to them and then some. However, I still think that cops and prosecutors always overstate the significance of such things. I started thinking about 123 terabytes (16000 dvds ::)). That would be something like 23,000 hours of video, assuming it was good quality HD, which seems pretty unlikely to me. They almost have to be referring to the total amount of up/down bandwidth of their board, which is kind of a meaningless number in relation to the story. It's kind of like the DEA confiscating $1000 dollars worth of pot, and calling it half a million because of it's eventual resale potential, or the RIAA seeking $30k per song because of lost revenue.
-
7SB, I am totally with you on this and it is disturbing to me that some people on this board actually defend aspects of the morality of something as heinous as CP and will question the validity of these acts. It is very clear that a video/picture market for this kind of stuff exists because of the demand for it and whether you are an inactive viewer or active creator of the material it is and should remain a crime. It seems that people forget that laws not only exist to protect us from the acts of others, but also to establish morality and deviancy within a society. Nothing we do ever occurs in a vacuum so the argument "as long as we are not harming anyone else" is of little value to me.
-
And many people on this forum, including plenty who are on your side of the CP issue, think that using the law to enforce morality is bullshit.
-
But essentially that is part of what laws are. They deal in morality. Like not murdering people. It's a moral to say I won't kill people because I don't want to take a life. That's a moral. The law does enforce that moral. I think that is ok though.
I also think its ok for the law to enforce morality such as CP.
There are some things I'd rather government stay out of though.
-
Trying to argue the definition of morality really makes my brain hurt. Suffice it to say, my interest in the law is to protect people, not to compel some arbitrary sense of decency.
-
Trying to argue the definition of morality really makes my brain hurt. Suffice it to say, my interest in the law is to protect people, not to compel some arbitrary sense of decency.
That's fair as far as im concerned. However both murder and CP do not really fall under "arbitrary sense of decency" in my opinion.
-
And many people on this forum, including plenty who are on your side of the CP issue, think that using the law to enforce morality is bullshit.
One needs to distinguish between moral laws that are enacted for morality's sake, and moral laws that protect innocent people. Obviously, the CP laws are the latter kind.
rumborak
-
I don't see how anyone can have any sense of leniency for the members of that community.
What exactly did they do wrong?
-
I don't see how anyone can have any sense of leniency for the members of that community.
What exactly did they do wrong?
Are you f'n kidding me? A. you are trolling or B didn't read the article. Not sure which.
-
Personally, I am a proponent of making sure those who make and continue the stuff to be caught and stopped, but are we really to judge who should get their rocks off on who? Especially if no one is hurting anyone else.
If someone has to be hurt in order for one to experience sexual pleasure, that person suffers from deep psychological problems that may stem in to the wanting to hurt others. Also, child pornography differs from normal pornography in that, in most cases, pornography made by adults is the trade of a skill for money, as are all other jobs. This skill just happens to be the ability to look very attractive during sexual intercourse. Where as child pornography is the intentional sexual abuse of a child in order to gain ones own sexual satisfaction, and to share that satisfaction with others. Also, child pornography must work on the basics of all other materials, supply and demand. In order for those, let's say, 400 members who weren't molesting children to share or receive what they wanted, someone did have to be hurt. Now, I hope that we all have enough common sense to agree that forcing anyone, regardless of age or gender, to have sex is a disgusting act. It is abuse, it leaves deep psychological scars that most people will never, ever get over in an entire lifetime and will complete change their outlook on life and their ability to find enjoyment in sex.
tl;dr: child porn has supply in demand, if there wasn't a demand no one would be hurt, and those hurt are fucked for life.
-
holy cripes, I'm glad they broke the ring up.
that's horrifyingly awful subject matter
tl;dr :
holy cripes, I'm glad they broke the ring up.
that's horrifyingly awful subject matter
-
I think we've reached the consensus that child porn is not good, and that it's level of non-goodness is rather high.
-
(https://delaorden.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/nirvana_nevermind_cover.jpg)
Congratulations, we're all going to jail.
-
You know, I find it fascinating that the almost universal opinion is that all subjects of child pornography are abused in one way or another. Now, that's not to say that they're NOT abused at all. But there's a difference between having sex with a 6 year old and dumb-ass 12 year old teen girls willingly undressing on public webcam sites. Both are considered child pornography, but the latter is COMPLETELY consensual.
So, the notion that 'someone has to be hurt in order for one to experience sexual pleasure' is wrong. Pedo's are attracted to young girls. Pedo's therefore look at photos and videos of young girls for pleasure. But not all these girls (the 12 year olds, specifically) are hurt. They're willingly taking off their clothes.
Really, I agree with numbers. Being attracted to young girls is not something that can be controlled. It's the same as being attracted to the same sex or being attracted to animals. What I find funny is that pedo's are universally and without question totally despised based on their attraction. And my understanding is that it's a VERY small percentage of pedos who actually take part in abuse.
-
You know, I find it fascinating that the almost universal opinion is that all subjects of child pornography are abused in one way or another. Now, that's not to say that they're NOT abused at all. But there's a difference between having sex with a 6 year old and dumb-ass 12 year old teen girls willingly undressing on public webcam sites. Both are considered child pornography, but the latter is COMPLETELY consensual.
So, the notion that 'someone has to be hurt in order for one to experience sexual pleasure' is wrong. Pedo's are attracted to young girls. Pedo's therefore look at photos and videos of young girls for pleasure. But not all these girls (the 12 year olds, specifically) are hurt. They're willingly taking off their clothes.
Really, I agree with numbers. Being attracted to young girls is not something that can be controlled. It's the same as being attracted to the same sex or being attracted to animals. What I find funny is that pedo's are universally and without question totally despised based on their attraction. And my understanding is that it's a VERY small percentage of pedos who actually take part in abuse.
I hope I'm not wrong, but I was under the impression we were strictly discussing the "super hardcore" posters there that posted pics of themselves abusing infants.
Obviously not all forms of CP is harmful to the subject. I'm sure 7SB and company will still feel it's horrible and beyond wrong, but I think in this case we're just focusing on the most extreme cases.
-
There's absolutely a difference between a 12 year old posing nude on her own accord, and child rape. Anyone can see that. They are both wrong to be looking at imo. But one is waaaaaay worse than the other.
And Adami, obviously you know the difference between child porn and art, so the whole Nirvana cover was really unnecessary and doesn't make any point.
-
There's absolutely a difference between a 12 year old posing nude on her own accord, and child rape. Anyone can see that. They are both wrong to be looking at imo. But one is waaaaaay worse than the other.
And Adami, obviously you know the difference between child porn and art, so the whole Nirvana cover was really unnecessary and doesn't make any point.
I guess I didn't make my point because my point was to lighten some of you guys up.
-
Here's a question for everyone that is kinda within the topic that could probably make for good discussion;
What do you think should be the age of consent?
-
Here's a question for everyone that is kinda within the topic that could probably make for good discussion;
What do you think should be the age of consent?
See that's a loaded question. If someone gives an honest answer and it's below what other people think it should be, they will be attacked and called disgusting, sick, immoral, etc.
-
16 sounds like a good age to me, I think. I also think it's a good age for alcohol and tobacco purchasing as well.
-
16 sounds like a good age to me, I think. I also think it's a good age for alcohol and tobacco purchasing as well.
While I disagree about this being the age of consent, any lower number will be met with hostility here, so I doubt you'll hear one.
-
I agree that 16 is a decent age for it. I don't think that means 16 year old's should be involved with porn or having sex with 25 year-olds either though.
-
I have no intentions of attacking anyone or calling them negative terms or anything. I just think it would be interesting to see what everyone's view of an ideal age of consent is. You should have no fear in putting your view out, Adami. I won't judge you, and I doubt others here would. This is a place where we can put our views out and feel safe/insulated.
I think the age 18 works good and fine, though if it was 17 or 16, I wouldn't be offended. Though anything too much lower than 16 may be a bit too low an age to be doing it, in terms of metal maturity/responsibility, IMO, but I'm happy to hear someone's reasons for feeling that a lower age would work.
-
Even someone at the age of 16 might not understand the consequences of being involved in porn. I don't think an age is the issue, but the maturity.
For those that don't agree with prosecuting people for looking at child pornography, do you also disagree with this?
https://www.aspca.org/Blog/breaking-news-new-york-governor-signs-animal-fighting-bill.aspx
"Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill that will make attending a dog fight or cockfight in New York State a misdemeanor offense"
Those people who attend a dog/cock fight are also helping to support it. I see it similar with child pornography. Those are are "enjoying" it are supporting it.
-
Age of consent is a silly notion, IMO. As I've stated many times before, there are young girls perfectly capable of making rational, informed* decisions about who, what, how, why and where to fuck. There are plenty of college girls who are completely ill-equipped to make rational decisions regarding same. No two people are the same, and that's something that ages of consent intentionally gloss over in favor of what the majority feels isn't icky.
Furthermore, the American aspect of it is entirely dictated by Christian guilt. We've put such a stigma on getting laid in this country that the mere thought of teenagers wanting to get off is automatically met with horror. Spain recently raised their AoC to 14, and I haven't heard of any major issues they have going on. A big chunk of the world has a much more relaxed attitude towards sexuality, and looking at how things have turned out over here, I'd say that they're on to something.
*Sadly, the informed part seems to be one of the things that the Right in this country want to do everything possible to do away with.
-
Even someone at the age of 16 might not understand the consequences of being involved in porn. I don't think an age is the issue, but the maturity.
For those that don't agree with prosecuting people for looking at child pornography, do you also disagree with this?
https://www.aspca.org/Blog/breaking-news-new-york-governor-signs-animal-fighting-bill.aspx
"Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill that will make attending a dog fight or cockfight in New York State a misdemeanor offense"
Those people who attend a dog/cock fight are also helping to support it. I see it similar with child pornography. Those are are "enjoying" it are supporting it.
As I've stated here, I don't see a necessary correlation between actor/observer in child pornography. I don't think supply/demand is in play. Dog/cock fighting is a completely different story. We're talking about a commercial enterprise, where the observers directly support the actors. To be fair, the people organizing and participating should be punished more severely, IMO.
-
I, obviously agree.
Even if somehow the cops found a way to make sure no CP images or recordings ever went public again...........would sexual abuse stop? Of course not. Because the sexual abuse is about the person, it's not because there's a market for it.
Unless some of you are saying that you're cool living in a world with sexual abuse as long as it's not recorded in any way.
-
Even someone at the age of 16 might not understand the consequences of being involved in porn. I don't think an age is the issue, but the maturity.
For those that don't agree with prosecuting people for looking at child pornography, do you also disagree with this?
https://www.aspca.org/Blog/breaking-news-new-york-governor-signs-animal-fighting-bill.aspx
"Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill that will make attending a dog fight or cockfight in New York State a misdemeanor offense"
Those people who attend a dog/cock fight are also helping to support it. I see it similar with child pornography. Those are are "enjoying" it are supporting it.
As I've stated here, I don't see a necessary correlation between actor/observer in child pornography. I don't think supply/demand is in play. Dog/cock fighting is a completely different story. We're talking about a commercial enterprise, where the observers directly support the actors. To be fair, the people organizing and participating should be punished more severely, IMO.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think child pornography is basically a commercial enterprise where the observer's want creates a demand that they themselves or someone will fill.
-
So you believe that if people didn't want to see videos of sexual abuse, that abuse would stop? Or just the recording of it?
-
Abuse is going to go on. That's not the point here. We are talking about ending child porn. Obviously everyone wants child abuse to go away forever because its a horrible thing. Just because abuse will continue does not mean we shouldn't end child porn. The two aren't really equated in that kind of a way. I don't see why anyone in here is actually justifying child porn and are actually defending it. It's pretty damn shocking.
-
Abuse is going to go on. That's not the point here. We are talking about ending child porn. Obviously everyone wants child abuse to go away forever because its a horrible thing. Just because abuse will continue does not mean we shouldn't end child porn. The two aren't really equated in that kind of a way. I don't see why anyone in here is actually justifying child porn and are actually defending it. It's pretty damn shocking.
Assumign we're talking about that abusive child porn stuff, then it's just recorded abuse. Why is the recording awful, but the abuse itself is off topic? I just don't get it. It sounds like you'd be happier in a world where you can pretend this stuff doesn't happen simply because there won't be recordings of it.
How is the recording of an act more important than the act itself? Why bother trying to end the watching of the recording of an act that you seem to have desire to end? I ask this because the recording of the act has already led to people being punished for the act itself.
-
Abuse is going to go on. That's not the point here. We are talking about ending child porn. Obviously everyone wants child abuse to go away forever because its a horrible thing. Just because abuse will continue does not mean we shouldn't end child porn. The two aren't really equated in that kind of a way. I don't see why anyone in here is actually justifying child porn and are actually defending it. It's pretty damn shocking.
Assumign we're talking about that abusive child porn stuff, then it's just recorded abuse. Why is the recording awful, but the abuse itself is off topic? I just don't get it. It sounds like you'd be happier in a world where you can pretend this stuff doesn't happen simply because there won't be recordings of it.
How is the recording of an act more important than the act itself? Why bother trying to end the watching of the recording of an act that you seem to have desire to end? I ask this because the recording of the act has already led to people being punished for the act itself.
Honestly I have no clue wtf you are talking about. I think I've made it perfectly clear how much I am against child abuse, child sexual abuse, and the filming of it. I want it all to end. All of it. How have I not made that perfectly clear in this thread?
-
Well then you have 2 options as it were.
1. People continue to commit sexual abuse, but recording it etc is never done. No one gets caught really.
2. People continue to commit sexual abuse, and some of these people are dumb enough to record themselves doing it and trading it and end up getting caught.
Why wouldn't you want these people caught? Obviously it would be great if it just went away, or we had better ways of catching them........but if they're dumb enough to put recordings of themselves doing it online.........that's full proof evidence right there. Why would you want to eliminate that evidence?
-
Because obviously there is an under ground economy for this material that is thriving. It's perpetuating it. Thus perpetuating more abuse. Letting this shit go on and letting people gather this material just to catch them is a really stupid way of ending crime. That's like saying, oh if we put out some girls at night at a really dangerous street, and see a few get killed, we'll really be able to catch that murderer. Sure a few girls have to die, but who cares cause we will get the guy. That's not how it works and you know it.
-
Honestly I have no clue wtf you are talking about. I think I've made it perfectly clear how much I am against child abuse, child sexual abuse, and the filming of it. I want it all to end. All of it. How have I not made that perfectly clear in this thread?
And to this end, I agree with you. You suggest that I'm defending child pornography, and that's really somewhat of a reach. Like you, I'm opposed to people abusing children, and therefore necessarily filming the act. Where we disagree is that you seem to think people who merely download it should be vilified as much as the people who create it. I think they should be the very least of society's concern.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think child pornography is basically a commercial enterprise where the observer's want creates a demand that they themselves or someone will fill.
For this to be valid, you'd have to think that there is somebody out there who, despite finding it wrong and unappealing, decides to diddle his niece for financial or social gain. Does this really seem plausible to you?
-
Because obviously there is an under ground economy for this material that is thriving. It's perpetuating it. Thus perpetuating more abuse. Letting this shit go on and letting people gather this material just to catch them is a really stupid way of ending crime. That's like saying, oh if we put out some girls at night at a really dangerous street, and see a few get killed, we'll really be able to catch that murderer. Sure a few girls have to die, but who cares cause we will get the guy. That's not how it works and you know it.
Actually that's not the same in the least.
Right now child porn IS illegal. Hasn't stopped it. 70 something people or whatever just got busted. Will that stop it? Of course not. The only solution is going after just about everyone who HAS child porn on their comp. That would involve gross invasions of privacy and what would be the end result? Filling the jails with hundreds of people who happen to like looking at pictures or videos of horrible things, and a few hundred maybe people who committed those acts. Imagine you have a generally good person, never does anything wrong, but happens to get off to pictures of 7 year old girls naked dancing the macarena, those are the people who should fill our jails?
I'm not saying it should be encouraged. But punish the people committing the acts, don't fill our jails with average every day guys with weird fetishes that you don't like.
-
Well then you have 2 options as it were.
1. People continue to commit sexual abuse, but recording it etc is never done. No one gets caught really.
2. People continue to commit sexual abuse, and some of these people are dumb enough to record themselves doing it and trading it and end up getting caught. and prosecuted for any involvement (in the act or enjoyment of the act)
Why wouldn't you want these people caught? Obviously it would be great if it just went away, or we had better ways of catching them........but if they're dumb enough to put recordings of themselves doing it online.........that's full proof evidence right there. Why would you want to eliminate that evidence?
This is where I believe my difference lies.
-
You can't prosecute people for enjoying things that other people do. That would be an awful law.
-
You can't prosecute people for enjoying things that other people do. That would be an awful law.
Thats not what I'm stating, but okay.
-
That's how I took it as well. Would you care to explain it, then?
-
You can't prosecute people for enjoying things that other people do. That would be an awful law.
Thats not what I'm stating, but okay.
You literally just stated that people should be prosecuted for enjoying the act, though not committing it.
-
When it comes to watching/spreading the rape of young children, I highly disagree. Instead of jerking to it, you should be reporting to the police and let them know where it came from.
You act as if child porn isn't actually a crime. Murder hasn't stopped and that's illegal.
For the record, I have stated before in this thread that the people who just like 12 year olds posing is a lot different than the people getting into the rape of children on video. The people who watch that and perpetuate it and act on it are higher up on the scale of awfulness. I think obviously that committing the act is much worse than downloading it, but downloading it and spreading it are high offenses in my book as well. They should be reported to police, not enjoyed.
-
For the sake of avoiding confusion, can we stop using the words child porn here and say child abuse recordings or something? Just so I know we're not talking about a 12 year old girl pissing on a cow or anything like that.
But to that end, 7SB you have a point. If someone finds a video of a child being abused or actually harmed they should very much report it. The problem is, if they report it........won't they immediately be arrested for having it in the first place? Kind of a catch 22.
-
You can't prosecute people for enjoying things that other people do. That would be an awful law.
Thats not what I'm stating, but okay.
You literally just stated that people should be prosecuted for enjoying the act, though not committing it.
Fine, the enjoyment of an illegal act that I consider to be as traumatic and disgusting as child molestation should be a chargeable offense on some level. What the level is, I do not know.
-
You can't prosecute people for enjoying things that other people do. That would be an awful law.
Thats not what I'm stating, but okay.
You literally just stated that people should be prosecuted for enjoying the act, though not committing it.
Fine, the enjoyment of an illegal act that I consider to be as traumatic and disgusting as child molestation should be a chargeable offense on some level. What the level is, I do not know.
What about enjoying mock child abuse? Like a cartoon or whatever of a child being viciously beaten and raped. Is that ok? Well.......not ok, but not punishable?
-
You can't prosecute people for enjoying things that other people do. That would be an awful law.
Thats not what I'm stating, but okay.
You literally just stated that people should be prosecuted for enjoying the act, though not committing it.
Supply and demand, if people didn't want to enjoy child porn then children wouldn't be molested for the intention of recording.
-
You can't prosecute people for enjoying things that other people do. That would be an awful law.
Thats not what I'm stating, but okay.
You literally just stated that people should be prosecuted for enjoying the act, though not committing it.
Supply and demand, if people didn't want to enjoy child porn then children wouldn't be molested for the intention of recording.
I hate to derail the conversation back into this, but dude welcome to the human race.....children are always going to be molested. Almost every single female friend I have (including my family members) have all been sexually molested (yea, I was pretty damn shocked actually). It's not going to go away ever. And I doubt the numbers would change much if it stopped being recorded.
-
You can't prosecute people for enjoying things that other people do. That would be an awful law.
Thats not what I'm stating, but okay.
You literally just stated that people should be prosecuted for enjoying the act, though not committing it.
Fine, the enjoyment of an illegal act that I consider to be as traumatic and disgusting as child molestation should be a chargeable offense on some level. What the level is, I do not know.
I thought the Hollywood Bank Heist shootout was totally badass. If they had it on DVD I'd buy it. I'd consider an hour's worth of shooting cops and civvies to be pretty damned traumatic. Wouldn't you?
But to that end, 7SB you have a point. If someone finds a video of a child being abused or actually harmed they should very much report it. The problem is, if they report it........won't they immediately be arrested for having it in the first place? Kind of a catch 22.
It's certainly happened before. The hysteria that persists around the subject makes it something you absolutely don't want to get involved with. Furthermore, I suspect there isn't any CP out there that the cops aren't aware of. They're looking for it alot harder than you are.
-
You can't prosecute people for enjoying things that other people do. That would be an awful law.
Thats not what I'm stating, but okay.
You literally just stated that people should be prosecuted for enjoying the act, though not committing it.
Fine, the enjoyment of an illegal act that I consider to be as traumatic and disgusting as child molestation should be a chargeable offense on some level. What the level is, I do not know.
I thought the Hollywood Bank Heist shootout was totally badass. If they had it on DVD I'd buy it. I'd consider an hour's worth of shooting cops and civvies to be pretty damned traumatic. Wouldn't you?
This is why I specifically wrote it out the way I did. It is not intended for debate in other circumstances. It's just my opinion that I have stated to agree to disagree.
-
Yeah, I was molested too buddy. No, not a single person recorded it. However, allowing people to gain pleasure from the extreme pain of children should not be an act condoned by this country, or any person who can wake up and look at themselves in the mirror. Anyone who enjoys watching the torture of children is not just a person who "enjoys what he enjoys". They are someone with inability to function properly in our society, which is exactly why we have laws.
-
And this, like all other matters should be dealt with in a logical rational fashion, not one dictated by emotions.
-
It is as simple as this, the enjoyment of watching the suffering of others is not an act that should be enjoyed. If someone has to go through what I had to go through just for some sick freak to have sexual pleasure, it just, it isn't right.
-
Yeah, I was molested too buddy. No, not a single person recorded it. However, allowing people to gain pleasure from the extreme pain of children should not be an act condoned by this country, or any person who can wake up and look at themselves in the mirror. Anyone who enjoys watching the torture of children is not just a person who "enjoys what he enjoys". They are someone with inability to function properly in our society, which is exactly why we have laws.
You're still advocating the prosecution of someone based on an uncontrollable thought. Regardless of how fucked up you or I may think it is, until that person has harmed or tried to harm another there no basis is to arrest them on.
-
It is as simple as this, the enjoyment of watching the suffering of others is not an act that should be enjoyed. If someone has to go through what I had to go through just for some sick freak to have sexual pleasure, it just, it isn't right.
I'm inclined to agree, but I don't think that it's our place to deem such an act prosecutable. Part of living in a free society is that you or somebody else are both allowed to be weird fucks. You can't go around throwing people in jail because you don't like they way they think.
-
It is as simple as this, the enjoyment of watching the suffering of others is not an act that should be enjoyed, it just, it isn't right.
On what basis?
-
It is as simple as this, the enjoyment of watching the suffering of others is not an act that should be enjoyed, it just, it isn't right.
On what basis?
How about the basis of being a decent caring human being? This thread is actually disgusting me right now so I think I'm outta here. I've been rational and put down strong valid points for my arguments. But at this point I am just kind of in disbelief at what is going on here. So I'm done with this debate.
-
I'm all for being a decent caring human being, but we shouldn't be legally obligated to be.
-
It is as simple as this, the enjoyment of watching the suffering of others is not an act that should be enjoyed. If someone has to go through what I had to go through just for some sick freak to have sexual pleasure, it just, it isn't right.
But someone is going to have to go through what you did to get their pleasure whether or not they record it. As has been previously mentioned, noone has ever been poking around the internet and said "Huh, it looks like a lot of people here really want to see some child porn. I should rape my daughter and film it for them." What happens is more along the lines of "I want to rape my daughter, so I should film and distribute it so other people can see it."
In case 2 (that is, reality) the daughter is getting raped either way, sadly. The people who download it and get off to it are not facilitating the crime in any way. In fact, the only thing they are really generating a market for is evidence. Are they still screwed up people? Of course. But their 'crime' has neither directly or indirectly caused harm to another person. And I suppose this is where the debate comes down to the definition of what a crime is/should be.
-
I'm all for being a decent caring human being, but we shouldn't be legally obligated to be.
This is my view as well.
-
On a hypothetical note (as in I have no idea if this type of statistic even exists)...
If there was some sort of high statistical link between viewing child molestation leading to being a participant in child molestation, would this change opinions? Not saying the change would be drastic, just wondering.
-
On a hypothetical note (as in I have no idea if this type of statistic even exists)...
If there was some sort of high statistical link between viewing child molestation leading to being a participant in child molestation, would this change opinions? Not saying the change would be drastic, just wondering.
Statistical links don't really impress me too much, but if there were an unquestionable link between the two, yes I'd have a much bigger problem with it. Also keep in mind that there's a distinct possibility that availability of, er, reading material might deter people form committing the actual act, which would offset. That's one of the tricky bits here.
How about the basis of being a decent caring human being? This thread is actually disgusting me right now so I think I'm outta here. I've been rational and put down strong valid points for my arguments. But at this point I am just kind of in disbelief at what is going on here. So I'm done with this debate.
For my part, I'm enjoying the discussion from the standpoint of a logical debate. Nobody here is supporting the notion of child abuse or saying that there's anything good about child pornography. I for one am actually quite opposed to it. You seem to be misconstruing our argument that something shouldn't be criminalized as actual support for it. We're merely discussing when and why something becomes a criminal or harmful act. Don't let it trouble you.
-
On a hypothetical note (as in I have no idea if this type of statistic even exists)...
If there was some sort of high statistical link between viewing child molestation leading to being a participant in child molestation, would this change opinions? Not saying the change would be drastic, just wondering.
No, probably not. First of all, I'd be skeptic as to the validity of a statistical study such as that one, mostly because I can't imagine a way to distinguish between molesters being actually lead to molesting by their viewing and the fact that most actual molesters would probably already be a part of the population viewing molestation. And, even with some validity to it, I don't think it would change my opinion in the same way I don't blame violent television for murder. Anything like that is a small contributing factor at most, imo, and at least completely wrongly blamed.
-
I guess I see a difference in watching a violent tv show and watching something that was a real event created for the disturbing, intended purpose such as child molestation or something like a snuff film.
-
The way I see it, how can the state tell you what you can and can't get off on?
The people committing the act need to be stopped. Those watching (completely separate as El Barto has stated) should not be put down with such a great extent.
The way I look at these things is...
Imagine a new law passed stating that you can't have sex or watch sexual videos containing the opposite sex over the age of 18. You'd be fucking pissed. You'd be more than pissed. Your life would be ruined. You wouldn't know what to do, and you'd hate your government. It is not the government's job to make sure we are moral individuals.
-
Well I personally don't really watch porn :biggrin:
-
Imagine a new law passed stating that you can't have sex or watch sexual videos containing the opposite sex over the age of 18. You'd be fucking pissed. You'd be more than pissed. Your life would be ruined. You wouldn't know what to do, and you'd hate your government. It is not the government's job to make sure we are moral individuals.
Um, you know, you can always use your imagination...
-
True, but how would you feel if you were put into that position?
It's more about the principle.
-
Imagine a new law passed stating that you can't have sex or watch sexual videos containing the opposite sex over the age of 18. You'd be fucking pissed. You'd be more than pissed. Your life would be ruined. You wouldn't know what to do, and you'd hate your government. It is not the government's job to make sure we are moral individuals.
No offense, but the "the evil government!!!" argument is rather useless when it comes to trying to come up with a reasonable stance on a complex issue.
The question is the tradeoff of protection of innocent minors vs the curtailing of a leisure activity. Any useful discussion happens in that realm, not the Libertarian Paranoia realm.
rumborak
-
No offense, but the "the evil government!!!" argument is rather useless when it comes to trying to come up with a reasonable stance on a complex issue.
Why not? If you believe the government tends to go beyond reason when it comes to restricting personal freedom, and you value personal freedom, wouldn't it then follow that any government policy should be looked through the lens of its potential to create new opportunities for the government to go too far?
-
There is of course the necessity to keep an eye on the government if it starts grossly overstepping its authority or mandate. But, always viewing it from that angle oversimplifies the complexity of the issues at hand, and more often than not leads to policies that makes people's lives worse.
rumborak
-
It seems to me a good number of people in this thread don't think privacy violation is an actual harm. I do, and I think watching child pornography intentionally is participating in that violation actively. Should it be a crime that warrants the death penalty? Absolutely not. But it is wrong, because it violates the rights of the victims who did not consent to be featured in those videos.
I would settle for at least making distribution of such videos illegal. The severity of the crime, and the extent to which it harms and exposes the victims, should just make this common sense.
On the other hand, watching fake child pornography should not be a crime because no victim has been harmed or is being harmed.
-
I actually alluded to that earlier in the thread, specifically relating to Erin Andrews. I can certainly understand why she doesn't want video of her prancing around naked all over the internet, and I'd give the same deference to victims of abuse. That said, does anybody really think that being in possession of the Erin Andrews videos should be a felony? Of course not.
-
I actually alluded to that earlier in the thread, specifically relating to Erin Andrews. I can certainly understand why she doesn't want video of her prancing around naked all over the internet, and I'd give the same deference to victims of abuse. That said, does anybody really think that being in possession of the Erin Andrews videos should be a felony? Of course not.
If being in possession of it shouldn't be, intentionally distributing it should be. I stand by that. There is also something to be said for the severity of the violation here--a video of Erin Andrews prancing around naked is arguably not as much of a violation as a video of a woman or child (or man, though we don't hear about this as much) being raped, for the same reason that passively videotaping a person walking down the street isn't a violation at all.
There may be a certain degree of subjectivity, a certain need for context, but I don't think it's that hard to explain why distribution of child pornography should be illegal based on the premise of a victim's right to their own bodily sovereignty.
That said, I think arguments about "killing the market" and whatnot are absurd. Anything can stimulate the market for anything else--if you're going to prosecute a crime, it has to be based on some harm. I suppose we differ in our definitions of harm, or if we believe a videotape can be actual harm.
-
Looking back through this, with at least one person saying "16 is a good age of consent but 16-year-old girls shouldn't be having sex with 25-year-old guys" I'm honestly curious what people with this idea think age-of-consent is supposed to mean? Is the "they shouldn't go with older guys" meaning morally, legally, or both?
Although I know some states have a different age 16 only applying as "age-of-consent" if the other party is within 2 years of their age (and otherwise it's 18) although I think saying "at 21, you can fuck an 18 year-old but not a 17-year-old" is a strange distinction...
-
EDIT: Holy crap, my post is a grammatical mess. Will update later. Gotta stop posting before my coffee :P
-
I actually alluded to that earlier in the thread, specifically relating to Erin Andrews. I can certainly understand why she doesn't want video of her prancing around naked all over the internet, and I'd give the same deference to victims of abuse. That said, does anybody really think that being in possession of the Erin Andrews videos should be a felony? Of course not.
If being in possession of it shouldn't be, intentionally distributing it should be. I stand by that. There is also something to be said for the severity of the violation here--a video of Erin Andrews prancing around naked is arguably not as much of a violation as a video of a woman or child (or man, though we don't hear about this as much) being raped, for the same reason that passively videotaping a person walking down the street isn't a violation at all.
There may be a certain degree of subjectivity, a certain need for context, but I don't think it's that hard to explain why distribution of child pornography should be illegal based on the premise of a victim's right to their own bodily sovereignty.
Maybe it is to Erin Andrews. Not everybody responds to being raped by blowing there brains out after 7 years of trauma-fueled addiction and misery. Erin Andrews was pretty damned distraught over 2 billion people seeing her big, fake jugs. That's irrelevant here though, and I pretty much agree with you anyway. Distributing illegally obtained pictures of someone against there will isn't cool, regardless of their age.