User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:10:44 PM EDT
[#1]
i am betting that will be overturned soon.
as soon as some politician gets busted for looking at porn and they discover a "model" was not 18 this ruling will disappear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:17:59 PM EDT
[#2]
While I absolutely detest phedophiles, I have problems with this ruling, I can see the same flawed logic applied to cases other than Child Pron.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:21:01 PM EDT
[#3]
So, I make a chair every time I sit in one?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:44:31 PM EDT
[#4]
This isn't all that uncommon. For instance, we had a fellow in a university computer lab looking at kiddie porn and whacking off. I took a look at the print server and found that he had submitted a print job while he was in the process of looking at the kiddie porn. Guess what he was trying to print out. A manufacturing charge was then added because he was trying to make hard copies. If the guy was downloading kiddie porn images and sharing them in any way, then I can see how a production or manufacturing charge can be sustained. If it was merely downloading kiddie porn on to his hard drive, I don't really understand how the manufacturing or production charge would work. Courts are pretty bad at understanding technology in general. I would have to see the exact Michigan statutes to see how they define "production" and see the rationale used by the prosecutor to argue that downloading images to the hard drive constitutes production. mcantu -- You really should ammend your thread title to reflect that this is about KIDDIE porn. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:47:46 PM EDT
[#5]
I don't see enough in the article to make a judgement either way about this ruling. We need more information before we can come to any defensible conclusion about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:58:10 PM EDT
[#6]
True, pretty vague article. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:58:45 PM EDT
[#7]
well i know i have seen some p0rn that i would swear was pre 18 stars but it came from a legal store. we all know they search for super young looking stars,
but one day every one who looks at p0rn might get a "bad" pic... at least i would bet. heck there is a movie on comcast demand that has keira knightly top less twice in it once when she was 15 and the other right after she turned 16. and if you have an orignal copy of blue lagoon brook sheilds was 15 IIRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 4:03:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Generally when someone is looking for kiddie porn, they aren't looking for anything close to the legal age. They are usually looking for 8, 10, or 12 year old girls. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 4:05:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Mich. court: Downloading porn is the same as making it
I Wish ! Taffy |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 4:36:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Kinda scary when you... er... I mean people I know... look at some of those sites on the internet. How the hell could you be sure the "models" are over 18?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 4:39:35 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 4:40:18 PM EDT
[#12]
What's it called? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 4:41:17 PM EDT
[#13]
That's funky.. I've downloaded misnamed pr0n from Limewire before and it comes out to be comething completely different - questionable age, and animal stuff
 So under this ruling, it would appear that I could be charged with manufacturing pr0n, even though I thought it was something completely different (happened once when downloading a music video, fer christ'ssake!) and immediately deleted it then scrubbed my eyes with bleach afterwards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 6:40:57 PM EDT
[#14]
the movie is "the hole", sort of a cool movie deals with a bomb shelter and a private school in england. it has the girl that played sally ryan in patriot games all grown up with big boobs ( dont get to see em ). the 2 scenes with keira one is a flash boob shot the other has her on a morticians table. but you also get to see her in bra and undies
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 6:45:46 PM EDT
[#15]
I’d think there would have to be some sort of showing of intent. Anybody could accidentally download a misrepresented file. I suspect the issue is “making” from the standpoint of “reproducing” instead of actually creating it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 6:47:46 PM EDT
[#16]
Same as making it? Umm...Then where's my "fluffer money"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 6:50:40 PM EDT
[#17]
my thinking too. If downloading a pic is the same as making it, would downloading a pic of a battered spouse the same as doing the beating? Is downloading pics of a mass grave the same as killing those masses, etc etc etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 6:54:04 PM EDT
[#18]
So... half of arfcom could probably sweep the pornstar hall of fame, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2006 6:56:25 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:48:41 AM EDT
[#20]
I have downloaded SpongeBob episodes only to discover it was some nasty porn thing. And by nasty, I mean REALLY nasty. As in "triple pen", which I am now sad to say I know the meaning of. I STILL have nightmares.
I doubt it. For someone to get busted for kiddie porn usually requires more than an accidental download. There is usually evidence of a pattern involving kiddie porn. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 1:40:20 PM EDT
[#21]
What I don't like is that there have been many times I clicked on a porn link in my travels and the pic or occasional movie was a girl I would swear was a minor. I have no control over that, but under this decision I can be charged with making kiddy porn?
Pretty fucked up if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:10:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Look, I am making Machine guns!!!
 I mean if downloading something is the same as making something, we are all fucked. ..........P.S. I hate pediphiles......but if anyone should be violating their civil rights it should be the parents of their victims, not the .gov. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:13:00 PM EDT
[#23]
I am afraid to Google WTF that means now. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:16:17 PM EDT
[#24]
Exactly how is "download" defined?
Technically, every single thing you view on the Internet is 'downloaded' to your PC. It is impossible to view any image of any kind without first transfering the image in some way to your local computer. Whether or not you choose to retain the image is a different thing, but by outlawing a "download", what they are technically banning is 'viewing' images online. I have no horse in the race, since I dont view the stuff, but there are certainly people that do, that could easily become felons without even realizing they are breaking the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:18:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Type in 'sheep'..  Evening Taff! Andy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:21:32 PM EDT
[#26]
The parents were probably the producers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:22:28 PM EDT
[#27]
The clip flashed a title called "triple pen" for a second, and then proceeded to show a lady um......entertaining.......three men at ONE TIME. I'll let your brain fill in the blanks. It was revolting. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:24:15 PM EDT
[#28]
You are getting silly here. They are not asserting that downloading an image of something is the same as the actual act in every instance. But in kiddie porn, downloading an image to distribute IS essentially participating in the creation of it. Sort of like the difference between posession, and posession with intent to distribute with drugs.... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:25:17 PM EDT
[#29]
Is that an old fridge? looks sweet whatever it is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:25:58 PM EDT
[#30]
google image.. "teen"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 2:28:47 PM EDT
[#31]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:07:47 AM EDT
[#32]
Ummm......You probably SHOULDN'T google that. Nor should you google "child models", etc. Unless, of course, you WANT to run the risk of a kiddie porn investigation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:13:10 AM EDT
[#33]
I recall seeing this at /. and over there they said it was for BURNING a CD with kiddie porn, not downloading it. Which kinda crosses a line in my mind, so . . . but we should burn the guy on a grill, anyway, for indulging in such things. No excuse for that behaviour. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:15:32 AM EDT
[#34]
Really? Then hot damn, I'm a pretty good photographer sometimes.
 ETA: My appologies to all for any goat sex pictures I've made, without knowing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:20:38 AM EDT
[#35]
The problem is that even though you and I don't try to view the stuff, we can still go to prison for going to a web page that has illegal material like child porn. For example, a poster here could post an illegal picture and if we viewed it before a moderator deleted it, we're guilty. We didn't intend to view it or want to view it, but in the case of child porn you are still guilty. This problem is made even worse with this ruling since that even though we didn't create it, if we backup our web cache to tape or CD we can be charged with manufacturing child porn.z |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:26:05 AM EDT
[#36]
kinda contradicts federal copyright laws - the one who films or snaps the pic is the creator and copyright holder (general definition case)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:28:30 AM EDT
[#37]
Would you be guilty of downloading underage porn if you were say 14 years old? Technically you wouldn't be a pedofile only a horny teenager.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:45:04 AM EDT
[#38]
Most likely, yes. IIRC there was some under <18 teenage girl who took pix of herself nekked & was busted for it. I read of it here so maybe somebody else recalls the case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:54:51 AM EDT
[#39]
If he was burning a CD, then a production charge is absolutely reasonable. He was making a hard copy (of sorts) of some kiddie porn, just as if he had printed them out. Bury him under the jail. It is interesting to note that a lot of kiddie porn charges go hand in hand with drug users. Often when one finds someone who is heavy into drugs one finds that they are heavy into other things as well. Their "fix" for just about everything becomes harder and harder to satisfy.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:57:55 AM EDT
[#40]
Generally that isn't how it works. Generally those busted for kiddie porn have an obvious habit. If I search your computer and find an image or two, odds are that isn't enough to justify a serious charge. But if I search your computer and find thousands of images, thousands of searches for kiddie porn, chat room records, etc, then it becomes obvious you didn't just stumble across something. Those who are really into kiddie porn are usually going to have mountains of evidence against them. Not a stray picture or two. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:59:21 AM EDT
[#41]
One cannot copyright illegal photographs. The laws in place about kiddie porn are a result of the realities surrounding its creation and distribution. Kiddie porn got a hell of a lot easier with the internet, and LE and legislatures are doing their damndest to catch up to the way these criminals are operating today. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:03:46 AM EDT
[#42]
LOL I was with you right up until the time you tried to tie in kiddie porn and drug use. Gosh they are probably liberals too 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:04:52 AM EDT
[#43]
I am not saying KP should be legal, or whatever, but illegal photographs are subject to one's opinion and most likely those laws are in violation of 1A to begin with... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:09:57 AM EDT
[#44]
The majority of kiddie porn charges I have had anything to do with have come from computers that were siezed during raids on meth labs, pot growers, etc. One finds all sorts of extreme stuff on their computers, from rape and torture stuff to barnyard "fun" to kiddie porn. The druggies tend to have extreme tastes, and they appear to want to have something more "interesting" than Jenna Jameson. Talk to some cops who do lots of drug busts and ask them what they find on druggie computers. They will tell you the same story.
Are you saying that someone who is going to cook meth next to a daycare center is going to summon the moral fortitude to draw the line at kiddie porn? Druggies are extreme personalities who are involved in addictive patterns in MANY areas of their life. That their pornography consumption is included should not suprise anyone. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:10:25 AM EDT
[#45]
Why do these overlyzealous judges try to legislate from the bench in an arena of which they have zero technical knowledge.
I detest any adult who would harm or exploit a child. However, this ruling is incorrect on multiple boundaries. The assembly of packet data is an automatic function of whatever client software you are using. There is no interactive action that could be taken on the part of the user. To actually CREATE binary data, it requires editing software to interactively manipulate the raw elements. I download AR15.com forum pages into my browser, but I certainly didn't CREATE the application behind it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:01:30 AM EDT
[#46]
I always find these prosecutions disturbing. I agree, that child pornographers and pediaphiles should be removed from society and serve looooong prison time. However, when politicians, police and prosecuters start to generalize ALL pornography in the same way, we quickly loose the distinction between porn as an exchange of images and common interests between consenting adults (18+, participating & viewing in privacy) and human right violating forms such as kiddie porn, snuff flicks and forced participation.
As responsible gun owners we can relate. I can't count how many times simply the image of an AR or AK has solicited a response from people around me; "hey, I thought those were illegal". That statement is simply wrong on so many levels but it is the belief that so many people bring to the Ballot box or Jury box because the Government and specifically the Courts have allowed this "greying " of definitions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:05:53 AM EDT
[#47]
I don't see anything in the original article to suggest that they are attempting to define ALL viewing of porn images as creation of pornography. The best information we have is that the guy burned kiddie porn pics onto a CD, which justifies a manufacturing charge under kiddie porn laws, the same as printing out a picture of kiddie porn. I don't see an effort to criminalize all porn or to stop people from burning it onto a CD. I don't see any indication that printing off a picture of Jenna Jameson in-flagrante will cause a SWAT team to bust your door down. I don't know why people get so danged touchy about pornography in the first place. Nobody is trying to make porn illegal. They ARE trying to have the law keep up with the various methods now available to manufacture and trade kiddie porn. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:18:02 AM EDT
[#48]
The real problem is if this ruling is applied to other pr0n. Under current supreme court obscenity precedent (at least as of 2002, when I took my 1st Amendment class) simple possession of obscenity - i.e. anything but child pr0n - cannot be criminalized. Production, distribution, sale, etc. can be, and usually is criminalized. Furthermore, obscenity comes under the "community standards" rubric, at least under federal law, which means there is no clear standard on what is obscene or not. Its pretty much whatever grosses out a jury.
Now if downloading gets put into the manufacturing rubric, anyone who downloads any questionable pr0n may be subject to prosecution. So don't go downloading tubgirl anymore. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:25:08 AM EDT
[#49]
I would even argue against the 'manufacture' claim. It is not the same as printing a picture. The end product is not actually pornography by very definition. It's a plastic disk of optical data comprised of compressed 1's & 0's. It's not child pornography until someone puts the disk into a drive and opens one of the binary files into a client program which renders that data into a viewable picture. Is possessing hydrogen peroxide a violation of explosives control laws? No, because it's only one componant of the end product. Again, I am certainly not arguing on behalf of any kiddie porno scumbag. However, the technical distinctions become very important because while we don't care what happens to kidde porno's, the case precedent is established for use on another issue. Remember when the Russian was imprisoned for over a year for presenting a paper to a conference which outlined the mathematical theory behind the encryption schema used by some corporate interests to secure e-books? It was mathematics, nothing more. They prosecuted him under the DMCA because he 'made available' the ability to defeat copy protection. In this case, made available meant he presented a lecture about mathematical algorithms. We have to be very, very careful in these waters because someday, 'manufacture' might mean that you downloaded a PDF document of a AR15 receiver. Are you prepared to defend yourself in court against Federal charges that you have illegally manufactured an NFA weapon because you downloaded the PDF file? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:36:19 AM EDT
[#50]
From the original post: "His lawyer argued that downloading pornography should be charged as possession, which carries a maximum penalty of four years. "It's groundbreaking law in the area of computers and pornography," said prosecutor Tony Tague. "This decision will provide a tool to prosecutors across the state, particularly in curbing and prosecuting child pornography." Copyright 2006 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved." I hear what you are saying 777 but the quotes from the original article are (IMHO) already starting to blur the battlelines. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
