Child Porn
- Thread starter buttercup
- Start date
You and I, and everyone here, can tell the difference between looking at a nude sex picture of a six yr old and a nude sex picture of a 16 yr old. The point is, under Canadian law, proven possession of EITHER of those pictures puts you in jail.
My point, in starting this thread, was to alert terbites to the fact that pics of nude girls, who look as if they're under 18, in sex poses, fall within Canada's definition of child porn. One can't help noticing that there are a lot of such pictures on some terb threads.
Some posters have said it isn't true that that is the law. Some have said it can't be true, not in Canada. However, it IS true.
Some posters have suggested that child porn laws require prosecutors to prove intent. Now, the SCoC has said that laws under which you risk prison do require prosecutors to prove a "deliberate intent to harm" component. But the present child porn law does not -- the crime, by definition, lies in mere possession. So are we going to count on the SCoC relaxing the child porn laws?
Some posters claim the authorities will only go after the perverts. But one man's healthy "She's so hot!", is another man's "If you look at pictures of 17 yr old girls with their legs apart, you're a damned pervert, sir."
The world is full of people who are all too ready to lock men they consider perverts away for a long period -- preferably in the company of some real perverts. In fact, we see plenty of those on terb!
No, never saw Brook Shields first film or any of her films but I heard that her first film is considered "art" (just like some paintings) and is fit for human consumption. BTW: I never look at "art" or paintings or statutes either.
Everyone should go through their record collections and burn "Houses of the Holy".
Don't go googling "Blind Faith" images either!
Don't go googling "Blind Faith" images either!
actually i don't go for anyone under 30 and my number 1 fantasy is the mom/son role play. as for your interpretation of the law, hollywood production companies and just about every porn vendor on the planet should be arrested. however you want to cut it, 18 is legal to fuck, if you want to or not is your own choice but it is legal.
You've already made your point, several times. We get it.
Unless you have something new to say you will soon be moving from "alerting" to "preaching".
Are you kidding me? relax child porn laws?
Personally I think that those who get sexual satisfaction from images of children should be flayed alive, rubbed in rock-salt and dragged behind horses until they are ground into hamburger. Hobbying is a legitimate pass-time between consenting "adults".... as soon a child is brought into the mix as a sexual object (even in cartoon form) then the legitimate boundry has been crossed and the individual goes from hobbyist to despicable sex offender. If anything I think that child sex offences committed by adults on children (especially those under 14 yrs old) should be a capitol crime!!!!
Here's a mindbender.A guy/girl can have sex with a 16 year old provided they are not in a position of authority. However ,if they take a nude shot of their partner while in coitus they can be charged,not for the coitus but for manufacturing(1 count) and possessing(1 count) the picture or video
If you get what you regard as innocent pleasure from fantasy shoolgirl pics, beware -- the world is full of tinmen.
So, if I have a Hentai picture of Lisa Simpson giving a BBBJ to Bleeding Gums Murphy, does that qualify as kiddie porn under Canadian law? Lisa looks ten, but she was ten when The Simpsons started in 1989.
I have seen a pic of Meg from The family guy giving head to Herbert the Pervert BUT she had lush ripe melons......but Meg's face.Is it still child porn?Fascinating
i guess you are a sex offender a and should be "flayed alive" according to tinman aka derpy mc derpy derp.
he is interpreting the law to suit his own agenda. just because he said that is the way it is doesn't make it the way it is.
.I have plans.Just so you know what "my own agenda" is, here's a repeat of post #42 from the Professor arrested for viewing child porn on his laptop during crowded airline flight thread, 30nov2011.
Quote Originally Posted by alexmst View Post
Buttercup, you are saying that what airplane guy did was harmful, but that he isn't as bad on the scale of bad things as other things people do to others? So what would you suggest (regardless of what current laws may be)society does as punishment to airplane guy for the scale of bad he has done (if he pleads guilty or is found guilty)?
Mr Alexmst, since you ask, I would treat it this way: I would treat child-porn that uses real children very differently from child-porn that takes the form of cartoons or drawings, or that makes use of models who appear very young but are actually consenting adults. Call that imaginary-child-porn, as distinct from read-child-porn. (Real children, by definition, cannot be deemed to have given consent.)
As to real-child porn, I say the full force of the law should be directed towards punishing and deterring the producers and purveyors of real-child-porn. They need to be labelled as sex-offenders, and deterred in as many (lawful) ways as we can think of, because of the harm they do to the children they use.
So, for real-child porn, I would be harsh in sentencing criminals who compel a child to carry out sex acts. If those criminals go the extra step, and film the acts, and sell the pictures, that makes it worse -- although, in terms of the harm done to the child, surely the major part of the sentence should be for compelling the child to do the sex act, rather than for selling the pictures.
Also, I say the people who (just) view such real-child-porn should be punished, but at a lesser level. The harm they do is indirect, by encouraging real-child-porn-producers to commit future crimes against children, and I would be less harsh on the grounds that the harm done to the child by the act of (just) looking at the pictures is less, on a scale of bad.
Look at the penalties we inflict for other crimes against children. What, for example, about people who sell cigarettes to children? They do direct real harm to the child, but we punish and deter them by a fine, which is often not sufficient to deter them from doing it again. We do not put sellers of cigarettes to children on published lists of people who harm children.
Disagree with me if you wish, but I rate the crime of selling cigarettes to a child as being more bad, in terms of the direct harm done to the child, than the crime of just viewing real-child-porn pictures.
Now, as to imaginary-child-porn, on the other hand, the situation is quite different. In imaginary-child-porn, there is, by definition, no direct harm to any real child. If there are any actors involved in the film/photo productions, they are consenting adults.
As to the perverts who like to arouse themselves by watching imaginary-child-porn, I find it very hard to come up with a notion of any kind of harm they are doing to any child.
In the interests of true justice, I say: if a particular behaviour does not harm others, it should not be a crime. If anyone can identify a way any real child, past, present, or future, is harmed by a pervert possessing and looking at pictures of imaginary-child-porn, please tell me what it is.
Obviously, if a pervert goes on to commit a crime that does, directly or indirectly, harm a child, they must pay the penalty for that, and the level of the punishment should be commensurate with the level of the harm.
But making simple possession and viewing of imaginary-child-porn a crime, smacks, to me, of punishing perverts, not for the harm they do, but simply for being perverts, and I do not think Canada should be doing that.
I dread the day when talking or looking or merely thinking about children is a crime. Whatever happened to that guy in B.C. who drew pictures of kids from his imagination? They were sketches from his imagination.
