Child Porn

[Babypowder]

You are absolutely correct. However, I don't see any threads with cartoon children having sex, here on terb. But I DO see many many models, in some very popular terb threads, who would pass for under 18 any day of the week.

i think the key term is the intention to be looking under 18. not just oh the judge thinks shes young because she has no tittes.

wow you can also access child porn by reading fictional stories about it.

these laws are really not about protecting children.

 

[HOF]

Child Porn Suspect Accused Of Photoshopping Young Girls' Heads Onto Older Women's Bodies



Cops are used to seeing some strange things in their job, and that includes arresting suspects accused of dealing in the disgusting world of child pornography. But even veteran officers may not have come across something quite this twisted before.

An 18-year-old Mississauga man is under arrest after police allegedly tracked him making, distributing and producing dirty pictures of young girls. But unlike other cases, cops contend this suspect never had actual physical contact with any of the children seen in the photos. They say he took their pictures and then repaired to his computer where he allegedly used software to digitally transpose the heads of the youngsters onto the bodies of full grown women involved in hard core sex acts. They allege he then uploaded his handiwork to an American pornography website.

ACCUSED is being held pending a bail hearing. But getting him to jail took another journey. The accused was going to school in London, Ontario and Peel Police had to travel there to bring him back to Mississauga.

Cops have since obtained a search warrant to examine his home here, and are asking anyone who knows what else he may have been involved in to call them.


STUPID PRANK GONE WRONG!

The accused in the above story was a freshman at UWO and basically ruined his and his family's lives. The photos were of friends from his high-school days and the intent was to be a smartass joke. No joke when police pulled him out of a lecture at UWO.

Sadly, this was unbelievable to the family as the accused's younger sibling was a victim of abuse by an extended family member several years before.

I've known this family since 2000 haven't heard/seen since 2008.

It doesn't matter how influential your family may be or what your family owns, shit happens. The accused should have known better for many reasons. Family ruined!


Small town Ontario! Simcoe and at large Norfolk County and Haldimand Region probably beyond!
[video]http://www.genzel.ca/?p=1698[/video]
http://www.genzel.ca/?p=1698
OPP stated the photos are not criminal in nature.

http://www.simcoe.com/community/innisfil/article/1289025
South Simcoe Police were asked to investigate after teachers at Nantyr Shores Secondary School.


Niagara Regional Police arrested a Grimsby woman, 18, in 2006 after teachers and staff at a high sc
shool were sent graphic e-mails of young people. Sex crimes detectives later determined a separate teenager had set up the e-mail account used to send the images in the name of a young woman. Forensic tracing was used to link the photos to the actual sender.
Charges of child pornography distribution and impersonation were laid in the case.

The practice only becomes illegal when the images are shared without the knowledge or consent of the person who sends the photograph, Det. Torresan said.

When something from the media is shared, it's fine. When a photo, name or story from media sources are shared, it's not an issue as in the above. However, when something that is shared in confidence regardless of copyrights is shared, you can get into a whole lotta trouble.

 

[MR FUNG]

Forget about electric chairs, we need electric bleachers!

 

[The Options Menu]

I doubt whether an inadvertent click is going to bring you to the top of the OPP's hit list but just be aware that even LOOKING at kiddie porn is a criminal offence and you risk becoming identified as a "sex offender".

First. Don't consume child porn. Period.

In the recent sweeps the police identified 1000s of IPs, and charged 60 people. The letter of the law says viewing is a crime, and even if depicted as looking under 18 is a crime, the police aren't generally interested in 'stumble upons'. It takes a fair bit of work to prove who was using what internet connection (even under Conservatives horrible new law) on what computer, and to a great degree it acts contrary to the public good. LE wants producers, people who share big archives, and people who consume large amounts of CP. Why? Because they may actually want to serve the public good, and they want slam dunk cases (not a stray image of an girl in pigtails in your browser cache). The other reason, is that if LE pushed to hard on 'stumble upons' there would be challenges and those very strict laws could get thrown out. AFAIK, I suspect the police aren't even pushing of the over 18 but looks under laws just because that sort of thing is far from a slam dunk (given the above).

But still, don't consume child porn, and if you have those urges get whatever kind of help there is. Unless you are a child, then wank it to old people porn (so whoever else shares your internet doesn't get in trouble), and fuck your peers.

 

[legmann]

Fellow-terbites - I can’t help thinking, given the content of some recent threads, that a warning might be in order.

We do all understand, do we, that it is a criminal offence, in Canada, to look at pictures that depict a person under 18 yrs of age engaged in sexual activity? Those who don’t understand this would need to look, for example, at “Child pornography laws in Canada” in wikipedia.

Even if the model is actually over 18, if she appears to be under 18 (to the judge, not to you), down you go, just for looking at the pictures.

I'm glad somebody posted this. Some of the pics posted here are a tad disturbing; to ignore that a number of those depict what appear to be barely pubescent girls is willfully naive.

This was enough of a problem on one of the Vanouver boards I frequented (either perb of cerf) that moderators took action, and posters voluntarily deleted posted images.

 

[buttercup]

In the recent sweeps the police identified 1000s of IPs, and charged 60 people. The letter of the law says viewing is a crime, and even if depicted as looking under 18 is a crime, the police aren't generally interested in 'stumble upons'. It takes a fair bit of work to prove who was using what internet connection (even under Conservatives horrible new law) on what computer, and to a great degree it acts contrary to the public good. LE wants producers, people who share big archives, and people who consume large amounts of CP. Why? Because they may actually want to serve the public good, and they want slam dunk cases (not a stray image of an girl in pigtails in your browser cache). The other reason, is that if LE pushed to hard on 'stumble upons' there would be challenges and those very strict laws could get thrown out. AFAIK, I suspect the police aren't even pushing of the over 18 but looks under laws just because that sort of thing is far from a slam dunk (given the above).

I'm sure you are right, in the normal way of things.

However, the conscientious responsible police officer is not the problem.

Suppose they are going after you, say for copyright infringement. Cos you've been passing on some movies or something. Suppose you are a regular non-pedo man who has his collection of porn stored in the computer now in the hands of the police. Suppose there are one or two pigtail pictures that come a bit close to meeting the canadian standard of child porn. (Given the CA definition of child porn, I would guess that practically anyone who's ever viewed porn of any kind must have something bad on their comp.) Suppose your not-so-conscientious cop now adds a charge of child porn to your copyright package. Suppose he says he'll proceed to trial on that, unless you plead guilty on the copyright thing.

So, yes, I'm sure the regular guy who has a collection of regular porn has little to fear from the likes of the officer you describe. But isn't the kind of abuse I described the real problem and the real danger?

 

[FatOne]

To be fair, every time I've read of a bust it seems to always be some guy with thousands of images on the computer and often a mention of babies and toddlers in sex acts. It never seems to be a guy who has a handful of images by accident or which are debatable. OTOH Anne Howe who started porn at 20 has had to testify more than once to get someone off on charges, she however is literally titless. I suppose if you wanted to be really safe, stick to porn from actresses that work for major studios and websites that keep records. Or stick to chicks with massive boltons and MILF/GILF porn. I don't think any judge would believe Lovette or Letha Weapons are under 18. Hurray for Boobies!

 

[simon482]

how many of you in here protesting the loudest go to sp's that are 20-24 in age and ask them for a school girl fantasy. if you are so adamant ten you should only be seeing girls in the 30's and up.

 

[dcbogey]

Now, while I am strongly against the latest internet privacy Bill before Parliament I think more resources should be allocated to tracking down these sickos.

Rub, I agree completely. I seem to recall reading that the government was going to give the ISPs money to install the hardware and software needed to fulfill the requirements under the proposed act. How about the government give that money to the police forces doing the "dirty" work? A thought that probably makes too much sense to ever get implemented.

 

[simon482]

i remember i needed a computer pretty badly as mine had just blown up and i was running an internet business at the time. i ran over to easy home and told them to hook me up for a week till i got mine back. they told me they would be over in an hour, no stress. guy showed up, hooked it up and left. i turned the computer on and went looking around as i noticed the hard drive was nearly half full. i found a file that had about 100 images in it of anywhere from a 5-14 year olds in different sexual positions. i instantly called easy home and told them to keep the info of the guy that had the computer before me and let them know what was on the computer. they told me cuz i was in a rush they didn't have a chance to wipe the hard drive before i took it, which is standard practice and this guy had been a customer of theirs for a while. they sent their guy over, gave me a new tower and took that tower and his info to the police department.

 

[wigglee]

LOL. Nice slippery slope fallacy.

What if I'm dating a girl that is 19 but looks underage. And we decide to film ourselves having sex, taking photos and so on.

Are you telling me under the law that I'm producing child porn?

no but Vic says you are either with him or with the pedophiles

 

[wet_suit_one]

Kinda fucking scary isn't it folks?

Mind what you post here lest I get arrested for it.

For my part, I stick to big boob sites. No one is going to think a 5 year girl has DD+ sized titties.

As for more resources to fight this scourge, I whole heartedly agree. However, the bullshit law before Parliament goes too far. Give the cops $500,000,000.00 instead, but fuck that law. This is a FREE COUNTRY. That's actually more important than fighting child porn. Let's keep things in perspective shall we?

 

[simon482]

The child porn angle is simply a stalking horse for the government's true agenda of gaining the ability to monitor internet activity at will.

If their true interest was catching these predators, they would deploy more resources to that purpose and use the existing more then adequate laws to accomplish it.

As the last public dog and pony show illustrated, the police know of 8,000+ IP addresses that have accessed child porn. They made cases against 100.

By my math, the cops can't fry the fish they catch. And they are (rightfully) frustrated by it.

didn't chris hansen fuck up with his "to catch a predator" and all the guys arrested got off on a technicality ? i thought i read something like that at some point. they need to figure out a way to monitor the "dark web" that is where the fuckers hide.

 

[afterhours]

do not get your knickers in a knot just yet

New section 163.1(4.1) makes accessing child pornography an offence punishable on summary conviction (maximum penalty: fine of up to $2,000 and/or imprisonment for up to six months) or, on an indictment, by imprisonment for up to five years. In contrast with the existing offence of possession which, in the context of the Internet, at least arguably requires that the accused download the material to a computer hard-drive, disk or printer, the new accessing offence would cover those who merely view the material through an Internet browser. New section 163.1(4.2) specifies, however, that the accessing of child pornography must be intentional if it is to be covered by section 163.1(4.1). In other words, the accused must know before viewing the material in question, or causing its transmission to himself or herself, that it contains child pornography.

 

[simon482]

The cops are on to something pretty good right now. They have hackers volunteering to root out these predators using the same wits they use elsewhere. Same with big network software companies. They have provided really cool software to help flag certain sites and those that access them.

You don't think Officer Bubbles is working the computers do ya?

well i hope they get into the dark web and crush them. it is next to impossible to catch guys there though.

 

[buttercup]

(Deleted)

 

[Scarey]

do not get your knickers in a knot just yet

New section 163.1(4.1) makes accessing child pornography an offence punishable on summary conviction (maximum penalty: fine of up to $2,000 and/or imprisonment for up to six months) or, on an indictment, by imprisonment for up to five years. In contrast with the existing offence of possession which, in the context of the Internet, at least arguably requires that the accused download the material to a computer hard-drive, disk or printer, the new accessing offence would cover those who merely view the material through an Internet browser. New section 163.1(4.2) specifies, however, that the accessing of child pornography must be intentional if it is to be covered by section 163.1(4.1). In other words, the accused must know before viewing the material in question, or causing its transmission to himself or herself, that it contains child pornography.

I thought"mens rea" would play into this equation somehow."The intent to".I believe in Canada that is needed for conviction in these type cases.Whenever i surf porn I always go straight to the bottom of the site to see if they have a legal disclaimer there stating the models ages etc etc.Some of these tube pages have 200-300 photos to a page..many sometimes you never even see if you don't scroll down far enough.At the very least check the legal on the site .

 

[afterhours]

Just to clear up any lingering doubts people might have, this is what the Canadian criminal code, as it now stands, says about child pornography:

163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or
(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offense under this Act.

(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.

(3) Every person who imports, distributes, sells or possesses for the purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.

(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.

(5) It is not a defense to charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.

(6) Where the accused is charged with an offense under subsection (2), (3) or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

(7) Subsections 163(3) to (5) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, with respect to an offense under subsection (2), (3) or (4), 1993, c. 46. s. 2.

this is not the current version

 

[afterhours]

I thought"mens rea" would play into this equation somehow."The intent to".I believe in Canada that is needed for conviction in these type cases.Whenever i surf porn I always go straight to the bottom of the site to see if they have a legal disclaimer there stating the models ages etc etc.Some of these tube pages have 200-300 photos to a page..many sometimes you never even see if you don't scroll down far enough.At the very least check the legal on the site .

you are quite right, mens rea is necessary for conviction not only for this but for any other criminal offence

 

[Scarey]

you are quite right, mens rea is necessary for conviction not only for this but for any other criminal offence

..and following that line of thought, by reading the legal disclaimer at the bottom of the page and making sure it was present, would that constitute"reasonable" diligence in ascertaining a websites validity that it did not contain imagery or videos of underage persons?I have yet to be on a porn site that did not features babysitter/schoolgirl/mother daughter/father daughter porn ,(simulated of course)porn.Most of the vids actually state as part of the dialogue that the participants are 18 years of age.