Forum - View topicNEWS: Nova Scotia Man Sentenced to 90 Days for Child Porn, Including 'Anime'
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Madoka...AYUKAWA!
 Posts: 158 |
|
|||||||||||
No, you failed to understood the point. By this same simplistic exaggerate extreme blinded logic I can name a hundred things you are doing that can get you behind bars for life because you are indirectly.. bla bla bla.. . For starters I am 1000000% sure you have bought Microsoft products at some point, not exclusive to MS, child exploitation is well known around factories in third world countries, by your logic you should be behind bars because child labor laws are exploited right and left by giants like MS Apple and the like and by buying such product you are creating demand continuing to support such nefarious practices that exploit kids. http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-slammed-over-child-labor-accusations-2010-4 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/technology/20soft.html?_r=0 See how foolish your logic is? |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
yell0
Posts: 24 |
|
|||||||||||
"Even if you're downloading ISIS propaganda videos where innocent people are gunned down for free from archive/news sites, and if they're serving ads then someone is making money. Thus you're encouraging more innocent people to be killed." "Even if you're downloading high speed car chase videos on youtube and they are serving ads then someone is making money off of this dangerous behavior and thus encouraging more of it.". "Even if you're downloading bank robbery surveillance for free someone is paying for those videos to be made, and even the websites that host such videos have a way to make money, even if you are not directly paying for it, by downloading it or watching you're creating demand and thus encouraging more bank robberies to happen. It's not rocket science". Well apparently this whole subject must be rocket science to you, because your arguments are absurd. Someone merely being in possession of evidence of a crime should not make them a criminal, it merely means they are in possession of evidence of a crime. Even if they paid for it, it doesn't necessarily mean they in any way contributed. Especially considering most such content is pirated you could simply be paying a pirate who is hosting it. In such a situation, which is the vast majority of cases when it comes to simple possession then they in no way were contributing to the exploitation of any children. You're making huge logical leaps and assuming guilt that can't necessarily be assumed. Don't get me wrong, if you actually paid someone to rape a child and record it, I think that should be a crime. But the crime shouldn't be for possession of any images/videos. The crime should be conspiracy to rape and/or contract to rape. However, things are much more complicated than you are making them out to be. Just because you downloaded or even paid for such material doesn't necessarily mean you've contributed to the abuse of anyone. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
CrowLia
 Posts: 5503 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||||||||
|
I shall never cease to be amazed by people trying to defend child pornography consumers by making completely unrelated analogies. Because picking up a child and forcing them into sexual activities to make money is the exact same thing as putting a security camera in your bank or making a news report about a terrorist organization. Because banks put security cameras for the express purpose of making extra money by streaming robbery footage online. And the reason networks report on ISIS is because they want to cash in on heinous crimes. Spreading information so people know what's going on in the world? Nah, it's all about pandering to the people who enjoy watching other people get murdered. In fact, reporters are the ones paying criminals so they have morbid news to report on.
Like, do you people even think before you type this stuff? For the ridiculous examples you provided, of course there are many other things to analyze. But not child pornography. If you're watching child pornography you're supporting the assault of children. And if you're paying for it, it doesn't matter if the person you paid to isn't the one producing the content, you're just pumping money into that market. It baffles me that people can say "paying for child pornography doesn't necessarily mean you're encouraging the abuse and rape of children" with the conviction that they're making any sense at all. *in an ideal world, companies who endorse exploitative child labor would be shut down and the people responsible would respond for their crimes and everyone would boycott these companies. The problem is multi-layered, with the added dificulty of international law, extreme poverty pushing families to force their children into the workforce as soon as possible and corruption in third world countries that allows it to happen. That being said, it's different to pay for a product and then the company decides if the product will be manufactured in unlawful conditions, than to straight up pay for a product that can't exist without the exploitation. You can build a computer without exploiting children. This does not apply to child pornography. It's not that complicated to understand |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||||||||
|
^
Even people who don't pay still piss me off. That's because while they may not be financially contributing to the CP "market" (if one can use such an innocuous label on something so heinous), they are still seeking out pictures of real abused children just for their own sick gratification. I have no issue with someone consuming loli and shouta fetish hentai because the characters are not real and so there are no victims. But people getting off on images of real children being abused makes my blood boil. Whether the sickos pay for it or not is irrelevant to me. Edit: anyway, thank you for slapping down those people who would dare to make such asinine comments and patently ridiculous comparisons regarding this topic. If you hadn't done it then I certainly would have. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
yell0
Posts: 24 |
|
|||||||||||
And it will never cease to amaze me the great logical contortions people such as you will go through to defend throwing someone in prison for never even contributing to the harm of anyone. Just because the analogies include different crimes, doesn't mean they're not applicable. You're creating a double standard by trying to say that possessing evidence of one type of crime is any different than possessing evidence of another type of crime. Basically your whole argument is one big double standard and nothing more. If someone was a librarian or a news reporter who paid someone for access to their library of ISIS propaganda videos where innocent people are killed this would all be perfectly legal and no one would try to say that person was abusing anyone. But the moment it involves anyone under the age of 18 and sex, you're somehow "contributing to the market", even if you never paid a dime to the people who were carrying out the rapes.
In fact, it's the exact opposite. If someone unrelated to the crime is hosting and distributing the material it only means that the people who created it are deprived of their profits. In other words the market is totally broken by those who redistribute it because there is no way to realistically enforce copyright. Not only that, it shines a huge spotlight on those who are actually guilty of harming children and provides the type of bullet proof evidence needed to convict such people. All it does is make it more likely that the people actually responsible will be caught because it's more likely the evidence will be seen by someone who will report it or who recognizes the perpetrator. The illegality only encourages people to hide and destroy evidence which might have otherwise led to the end of a child's abuse and/or the conviction of those responsible in court. Instead you're shifting the punishment to people who aren't actually involved or contributing in any way and in turn you are making it less likely those who are actually responsible will be punished. Great logic there.
Might want to read what I just posted above before trying to claim he's somehow "slapped down" anyone. Because the only thing he's contributed are a bunch of non-sequiturs. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
TheObserver99
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||||
Actually, that's false. In Canada it's not just the creation and/or sale of illegal materials that's against the law, it's the simple possession of them. And under laws currently in the works soon to come into force, ISIS propaganda videos and other materials that promote terrorist activity will be classified as illegal material (and a reasonable limitation on free speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Why make the possession illegal? Simple theory. If there's a disincentive to buy on BOTH sides of the market, then the traffic in the market itself drops steeply. It's more effective than a system where only the person selling stands to be punished... that doesn't stop people from searching for the material. It keeps demand up... and like it or not if there's demand there will be suppliers who are willing to risk it. But yes, when sexual activity and minors are involved we DO make a big deal of it. That is as it should be. And yes, we do take it extra-far in Canada - under current laws, ANY depiction of a minor (either a real minor, or a fictional character whom a reasonable person would assume to be a minor) engaging in sexually explicit activity, is illegal. It's child pornography. IMO, this particular offense is extra-heinous since it involved pictures of actual children. But I'm actually okay with how restrictive our laws are (see again, my "reduce demand and supply on all fronts" theory). I've got nothing against hentai (don't care for the stuff myself, but hey, whatever floats your boat), but if you're the sort of person who gets their fix watching a child or infant loli get violated... I just don't think there should be a legal market for you. Just... no. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
yell0
Posts: 24 |
|
|||||||||||
Well I mourn for Canada's freedom of speech then. Instead how about we make the analogy of someone recording a drunk driver running over someone with their cell phone and distributing it.
Simple theory, but a bad one. Just because the known transmission of child pornography goes down does not mean the amount created will decrease. Quite the opposite actually. The fact that stuff which has already been created is harder to find or entirely destroyed means that there is a lower available supply, even if the actual supply (just not easily accessible) is much much larger. The demand and want for such material remains the same regardless. You've only made the supply artificially scarce thus making it more valuable. How wouldn't this create the even greater incentive to create new material if the supply which has already been created is inaccessible? Plus it also makes the volume of traffic as you put it less visible. It may not really be decreasing the volume as much as you think or much at all. It just makes it much harder to track. Even still, the higher the volume of transmission of such material I would argue is not a bad thing necessarily. Because as I explained in my previous posts it means it is more likely someone will recognize the child and/or perpetrator and report it.
Wow, I'm really sorry that your country throws actual living, feeling, human individuals in prison to protect non-existent children.
How were the children injured? Did the molestation beams coming from the viewer's eyes warp time and space, re-molesting these poor children? Anyway, considering how few images he had, I can actually believe he downloaded them on accident in a much larger batch with other stuff from somewhere.
I'm not advocating a legal market for child abuse. I'm advocating a legal market for information and evidence of crimes which can be used to track down children who are abused and their abusers. Also, nice ad hom trying to make it like this is "for me". |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Kadmos1
 Posts: 13550 Location: In Phoenix but has an 85308 ZIP |
|
|||||||||||
|
Another thing that we have Nova Scotia to thank for (though I am happy this guy is getting some jail time if it's real kiddy porn that he has) is their Duck Trolling Retriever.
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Sunny milk
Posts: 695 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Once again, pedophobia proves how blind the hatred can be.
Because surely, if he had some pictures that might not even contain anything as horrible as it could be, that's proof that he is a monster right? God save giving him a break if he didn't ever do anything to a real child or pay for anything, let's just jump at his throat for indirect this or that. Just to put it here, is he is attracted to children, that's a fight against his sexuality in his whole life. If he didn't bad touch any child by this time, maybe he isn't such a horrible monster. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Ashen Phoenix
 Posts: 2907 |
|
|||||||||||
Eeeeexactly. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
TheObserver99
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||||
|
yell0, to use a different analogy (and I don't know how it works where you are, but this is the case in Canada), when you willfully buy stolen property from a thief, you can be charged as an accessory to that theft.
Similarly, when someone commits a crime like the creation of child pornography, anyone who seeks out an possesses that work is an accessory to its creation. A former Attorney General of Ontario just got sentenced to prison for the creation of 'written' child pornography and counsel to commit sexual assault, after he talked to (undercover) RCMP officers on chat forums in explicit detail about all the sex he'd had with his daughters while they were growing up (there is no evidence this actually happened, but describing it was enough), and encouraged them to do the same (that's what really sealed his fate). These were not bad decisions. They are meant to maintain certain public morals, and protect members of society who have no capacity to protect themselves. ANY sympathy or lenience towards those with a sexual interest in children is too much sympathy, IMO. It's utterly inexcusable. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Foxaika
 Posts: 365 Location: Columbus, Ohio |
|
|||||||||||
I'm with what you are saying when it comes to the creation and dissemination of actual material(as in things that are not drawings/artwork), but when it comes to artwork, or even just thoughts, I don't see why one should not be lenient. In that case, no one is getting hurt. And if it is the case that they are hurting themselves or having a serious problem dealing with this issue, then I guess that is where sympathy comes in. Wouldn't it make more sense to get them help rather than demonizing them? Edit: I would like to add that if the materials are being sought as evidence, for example, then I suppose in that case it isn't quite the same as if they are being sought for pleasure. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
yell0
Posts: 24 |
|
|||||||||||
But since you can't copyright it, how is it stolen? The only thing that makes media "property" legally are copyright laws. This doesn't even remotely begin to address the arguments in my previous posts. You're just evading them and then grasping at straws. Please actually rebut the core of my argument regarding the supply and demand which you conveniently ignored.
So if I seek out a video of a drunk driver running someone over, I'm an accessory to drunk driving and running someone over?
Wait, wait... so there was no evidence and his daughters never said it was true? People say a lot of things online. Either way, this seems rather irrelevant to the discussion other than the fact this could very well be pure thought crime. Welcome to 1984, Canada. So if I tell a story about a murder, real or fake should I be put in prison too? Because it's encouraging people to go out and murder, right? I guess all those murder mystery novelists should be locked up tight!
Protect who exactly? How is someone being protected when no one is being harmed other than the person who was locked up?
So if someone goes their entire lives attracted to children, but never once touches one or even talks to one, we should have no sympathy for them and no respect for their self control? All the while you throw them in prison for what is nothing more than thought crime? These laws are as damaging to society as child molesters. Great job! You're now hurting society as much if not more than child molesters do by locking up people who have literally never harmed anyone, to "protect" people? What? I'm glad I don't live in Canada. You guys really have lost any semblance of free speech. I wonder if your tune would change if the heavy boot of the state ruined your life just because of something you said that wasn't threatening anyone or especially just for something you THOUGHT. Anyway, at this point I'm 99% sure you're a troll. So troll on. 
Isn't that also the very definition of thought crime? You're differentiating between the same exact action only on what is going on inside the person's head as they do so. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Foxaika
Posts: 365 Location: Columbus, Ohio |
|
|||||||||||
Don't think so. In one case, the person is trying to stop abuse(finding evidence of abuse, for example). In the other, the person is essentially encouraging it. I was just giving an example of why searching for something like that would be done for a reason other than simply deriving pleasure from it. Thought crime would be if someone was being punished for having the thoughts and not acting on them. Downloading child pornography(actual pictures, not artwork) for pleasure is acting on it simply because it shows a demand for such material. If there was actually no demand, none would be made, and no children would be abused to make it. That's the idea anyway. I won't argue it's perfect, but realistically, if it helps lessen abuse, then I can't say it's a bad thing. Last edited by Foxaika on Tue May 05, 2015 11:14 am; edited 2 times in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Agent355
 Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
|||||||||||
How is it really that different, though? John Oliver recently did an excellent report about Western clothing manufacturers benefiting from child labor and unsafe factory conditions. The clothing companies (such as the Gap, H&M, Joe Fresh, Walmart, etc) claim ignorance and act shocked every time a violation is uncovered, but it happens over and over again, and the only people really investigating seems to be the occasional journalist (that is to say, no one is really keeping track). There just isn't a public push against it. We, as a society, really like cheap clothes, and we aren't above turning a blind eye to child labor or other shady practices to get it. This is certainly a multilayered problem, but I'm not sure that we, as consumers in the Western world, aren't complicit in some ways. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group