Hacker News Reader

Comment by kefka | Hacker News Reader

Now, is this "possession" of child pronography crap images that ended up in a Content.IE5 directory, or in Mozilla's cache? Or perhaps, even deleted from those locations? Or are these images that were in C:/windows/fonts/child_porn hidden folder?

And that, why is child porn illegal? It is only a picture of a CRIME THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE. Yet, snuff films and other films and pictures that show active murder are completely legal. And considering there is no mens rea for this possession, I believe that it should not be a crime.

For the people whom nodded me down, please answer this: why is child porn illegal but videos/pictures of murder NOT illegal?

View on HN

why is child porn illegal? It is only a picture of a CRIME THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE.

An important question is: Does criminalizing the possesion of child porn reduce the chance of those original crimes from happening? I think it does, and I think that's a good reason to ban it.

It's also a good way to discourage people who like child porn, to tell them that there is something wrong with them, and that they should not do it.

That's his point. Would criminalizing violent movies reduce chances of violence? Many think it would; so ban those movies? Video Games? Guns? Knives? Rice cookers?

You're totally missing it. A CP image is a record of a crime, a violent movie is just a depiction of something that would be a crime except that it isn't real. So criminalizing child porn is of a different degree than criminalizing violent movies, the one is somewhat reasonable the other is ridiculous.

In many countries, virtual CP is also illegal. US law specifically includes a clause regarding material that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A section (a)(6) .

So, are there markets for non-criminal recordings of "child" pornography? Can you tell the difference? I'm betting it exists, and "pedophiles" don't even know it. Are the laws the same against both mediums?

And while we agree upon the differences between the child porn and violent movies, I really don't trust lawmakers on making rulings for the consuming side of the equation. I wouldn't give them an inch.

How about criminalizing viewers of a video depicting a kid in a bike helmet entering a closet to exchange the disk on his laptop hooked into MIT's network? A video on a PS3 running "unsigned" software? Racial violence? Religious violence? You might or might not know if performing these acts fall on either side of the law and probably less likely to know if you can legally enjoy the reproduction made available by video. How do you make yourself aware and keep track of what is consumable, distributable, or otherwise?

Not only that, but my first comment was giving benefit of doubt about said images. If someone sent you the images unwillingly (coded into a browser as ads), how do you know until you downloaded it? And then, downloading then itself is illegal. You have to be a psychic to know if an image is indeed illegal.

After all, what's the difference (in the US) between a 17 yr 364 day old and a 18 yr old? A felony.

All of those things have legitimate uses that must be weighed against the harm they can cause.

The slipperly slope derailing tactic is silly. You could say that about any law. "Why have legal minimum wage? Eventually it'll be €1,000,000 per hour?", "Why allow people to kill in self defence? Surely eventually everyone'll be able claim anyone will be able to kill in self-defence and murder will be legal!!"

Definitely. So why have the law on "_consuming_" child pornography? I believe that is the top-most comment's concern. The law is so easily abused, subverted, or otherwise. It sets precedence for bad law or interpretation therein. It muddies society, where you can already be detained for god knows what -- probably even watching certain violent movies. What are those laws btw? Do I get a copy to sign away my livelihood?

And if you want to talk about slopes, how about the one this Feldman is on? He has yet to be charged with a crime, and that's enough to hand over your privacy, livelihood, and future, completely. Even if he complies and found guilty of no crime, he is going to have a mark to carry through the rest of his life. Again, as the parent presents, we have this exact problem with images traded by 18 and 17.99 year olds.

AFAIK, there is no law regarding "consuming" CP. There are laws regarding distributing, possessing, acquiring, etc.

But it's been a while since I've read http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A ; feel free to prove me wrong.

So why have the law on "_consuming_" child pornography?

Yes. And I'm OK with that.

And yes there are few cases where a very broad written law can be bad, like a teenager sending a naked picture of themselves. Laws should be written better to exclude that. There is a vast amount of "sexual pictures of children" however that is quite clear to define, and should be illegal.

You make a good point. If, in fact, illegalization of child porn does decrease the rape of children, then so be it....

But as I stated above, that path leads to ignoring mens rea. Instead of "did you mean to", it is "you possessed it, too bad". This is badness to the point that I could send people CP via picture message on their phones, and turn them in.

Or worst yet, a 15 yr old girl sent a naked picture to her boyfriend. And then, SHE was prosecuted for the production of child porn. And it's her own fucking body!

Lastly, I do not count on politicians (of any party) being reasonable about this issue. They make crap laws, with holes and failures, and the prosecutors apply said laws the way they see fit. So, I am forced to fight for legalization of the pictures (AND prison time for the rapists).

> "that path leads to ignoring mens rea"

No it doesn't.

"a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists" - page 14 of [0]

Also note that US law allows for an "affirmative defense" [1] if you discover you possess a small amount of CP but do not intend to -- you can either destroy it, or turn it in to law enforcement, without consequence.

Which means, quite simply, that the courts have not abandoned mens rea in CP law. There are some parts of the law that are stupid, but that's not one of them.

[0] http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12....

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A ; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

Well can't we just make it a law that it's illegal to possess and intend to possess child porn? What's so hard about that. You can often tell based on the files in a computer whether they intended to posses it. Are there dozens/hundreds of images, or only one? Are the images organised, or in the temporary browser cache? Have the images been saved over many dates or were they all created at once? The solution is better written laws, not no laws.

Or worst yet, a 15 yr old girl sent a naked picture to her boyfriend. And then, SHE was prosecuted for the production of child porn. And it's her own fucking body!

Oh I agree that that should not be illegal. So it's just a matter of tweaking the law to exclude that.

And given the kneejerk replies about "Being Tough On Criminals" ™ leads to idiotic laws that fail in all sorts of bad ways.

We have too many laws on the books (via local, state, and national) that nobody can be sure they aren't breaking SOME law, sometime. Last thing I want are more laws, that weren't tested to check validity.

And frankly, I don't trust the Democrats, Republicans, Independants, Libertarians, or whomever is in Congress. The lot of them have proved, time and again, that they are incompetent.

I live in a country without this bizzar multi-level law system (and don't even know how it works). Switch to a simplier system.

There is evidence that the legalization and accessibility of pornography can lead to a marked decrease in sex crimes (1). Of course its doubtful if we can transfer these findings to the situation with child porn, but at the same it's probably nigh impossible to do research on the topic.

1: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1795...

But is that looking at "sex that would legal if it were consentual" (e.g. an adult man having sex with an adult woman). We don't want any form of sex with children to be legal (and I hope no-one's really suggesting this), so would making porn of adult/children sex legal increase the amount of adult/children sex or decrease it? Looking at adult/adult porn vs adult/adult non-consentual sex is comparing apples to oranges.

Do you want to begin locking up high schoolers who have sex with their high schooler significant others?

Most states (30 as of 2010) have "age gap" or "Romeo and Juliet" provisions in their statutory rape laws specifically to deal with such circumstances. Generally speaking, teens who are within a few years of age of each other are not committing a crime.

See http://www.crimevictimsinstitute.org/documents/Adolescent_Be... , which has an extensive list of state-by-state laws.

I am aware. rmc said "We don't want any form of sex with children to be legal (and I hope no-one's really suggesting this)." He is apparently not aware that it is legal for some children to have sex with some other children, and for some children to have sex with some adults, and really hopes that I don't suggest legalizing these things. The natural question when someone says "I hope no one's really suggesting <the status quo>" is to ask if they really mean that we should change our policy in that area, I think.

> "He is apparently not aware"

More likely, he's aware but chose not to address it (he confirms this in a sibling comment.) His point was about the effect of legalizing CP on "adult/children sex"; including disclaimers about age gaps involving borderline-adults and borderline-children would have made his comment less readable for little benefit.

The natural response to someone missing a disclaimer is to either let it slide or to note it in a non-adversarial way ("it is legal for those close enough in age" or something like that.)

Nope. I'm fully in support of it being legal based on age gap, and neither having position of power etc.

But there is an large age range where it almost certainly should be illegal. Is there any situtation where a 40 year old can have sex with a 10 year old? I think not. This is and should be illegal. We should stamp that out.

> We don't want any form of sex with children to be legal (and I hope no-one's really suggesting this)

Children should be able to have sex with other children legally. Though I don't know how you could transfer that legality to porn.

Look at sexting. Kids can be charged with child pornography simply for having naked pictures of themselves, or their girlfriend/boyfriend, on their phone.

I figure if I'm underage, I should still be able to take pictures and possess pornography featuring myself. And if I so desire, why shouldn't I be able to sell that picture and make money?

I'm not necessarily advocating all this, it's just food for thought.

I took an easy-A class on computer crime at school. I discovered that applying the fundamental principals of law unilaterally, even when it applies to child porn, is a quick way to get people to label you a pedophile.. but here goes anyway:

> Does criminalizing the possesion of child porn reduce the chance of those original crimes from happening? I think it does, and I think that's a good reason to ban it.

"I think it does" is not a sufficient motivation for a federal law. Generally, evidence should be required to drive policy, but I'd settle for successful deployment to a small number of jurisdictions before scaled deployments.

> It's also a good way to discourage people who like child porn, to tell them that there is something wrong with them, and that they should not do it.

Oh yeah, because a good scolding works so well for addicts.

Oh yeah, because a good scolding works so well for addicts.

Here's an example: Gay men. For decades they were shunned and told they were horrible. The act was illegal, and if a gay man flirted with someone, no-one'd look the other way if the fliter was assaulted, possibly killed. You could be fired for being gay, or kicked out of your home. As a result there were very few acts of gay sex and many gay men did not live as gay men, instead staying in the closet and living as if they were straight; wife, kids the lot. So yes, shunning and scolding people can work to reduce the rate of which the sex act is done. (How else can you explain how many gay men lived as straight men for so long?)

Just being in the closet is not evidence that a person wasn't actively gay. What is your evidence that gay sex happened less frequently when homosexuality was forbidden?

The US court system has consistently ruled that you cannot "possess" something you do not know exists [0]. Thus, if you are ignorant of your computer having stored an image (or ignorant of its contents), you cannot be convicted of possessing that image.

One of the major reasons CP is illegal is that demand is thought to drive production.

[0] see page 12 of http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12....

Snuff films are illegal.

CP is illegal because it represents an ongoing harm to the child in the CP, and because the CP itself is considered criminally obscene. (The First Amendment is not absolute, and content like CP is not protected by it.)

There are other scientific/medical reasons for banning CP, but the primary reason is that possessing CP is a gateway sex crime that leads to greater offenses over time.

It's illegal to watch snuff films? Does this include things like news reports about elevators in China and rice cookers in Boston?

It's illegal to make and possess snuff films. It's not illegal to watch them. It's a legally vast distinction.

You would be right, but you would have to show that there are murders taking place for the direct production of snuff films, that there are (significantly) as many murderers feeding snuff film addicts as there are child pornographers feeding child porn addicts.

Put simply, snuff films don't encourage further murder (not through the audience, and not indirectly from demand).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com