Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:05:51 PM EDT

Mich. court: Downloading porn is making it

MUSKEGON, Mich., Jan. 27 (UPI) -- A Michigan appeals court has ruled that downloading child pornography from the Internet can be charged as "making" the material.

Making or manufacturing child pornography is a felony in Michigan with a potential sentence of 20 years in prison. The court upheld the position of the Muskegon County prosecutor in the case of former Egelston Township Treasurer Brian Hill, the Muskegon Chronicle reported.

Hill is awaiting trial. The court ruling has put his case on the docket, although the issue is likely to be decided by the state Supreme Court.

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.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 3:10:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 3:17:59 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 3:21:01 PM EDT
So, I make a chair every time I sit in one?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 3:44:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 3:46:46 PM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By Not_so_Clever:
So, I make a chair every time I sit in one?



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.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 3:47:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 3:58:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
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.



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.



True, pretty vague article.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 3:58:45 PM EDT
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

Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:03:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
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



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.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:05:15 PM EDT
Mich. court: Downloading porn is the same as making it



I Wish !

Taffy
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:36:20 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:39:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Taffy223:
Mich. court: Downloading porn is the same as making it



I Wish !

Taffy





Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:40:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
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.





What's it called?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:41:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 6:57:00 PM EDT by leelaw]
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.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:40:57 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:45:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
... So under this ruling, it owuld appear that I could be charged with manufacturing pr0n, even though I thought it was something completely different ...


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.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:47:46 PM EDT
Same as making it? Umm...Then where's my "fluffer money"?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:50:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:54:04 PM EDT
So... half of arfcom could probably sweep the pornstar hall of fame, right?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:56:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu: A Michigan appeals court has ruled that downloading child pornography from the Internet can be charged as "making" the material.
Must be that newfangled "Michigan Logic".
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:48:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 9:49:52 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By leelaw:
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



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.



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.



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.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 1:40:20 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:10:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 2:11:20 PM EDT by yekimak]
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.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:13:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
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



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.



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.



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.



I am afraid to Google WTF that means now.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:16:17 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:18:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:21:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:
but if anyone should be violating their civil rights it should be the parents of their victims, not the .gov.



The parents were probably the producers.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:22:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:
I am afraid to Google WTF that means now.



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.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:24:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
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.



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.



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....
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:25:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:
Look, I am making Machine guns!!!

www.secureit-usa.com/images/weapon-cab4md.jpg


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.



Is that an old fridge? looks sweet whatever it is.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:25:58 PM EDT
google image.. "teen"

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:28:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWS:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
but if anyone should be violating their civil rights it should be the parents of their victims, not the .gov.



The parents were probably the producers.





Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:07:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ring:
google image.. "teen"




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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:13:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Not_so_Clever:
So, I make a chair every time I sit in one?



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.




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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:15:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 4:16:21 AM EDT by SubnetMask]
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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:20:38 AM EDT

I have no horse in the race, since I dont view the stuff

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
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:26:05 AM EDT
kinda contradicts federal copyright laws - the one who films or snaps the pic is the creator and copyright holder (general definition case)
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:28:30 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:45:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:54:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
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.



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....
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:57:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 5:00:14 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By zoom:

I have no horse in the race, since I dont view the stuff

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



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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:59:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:
kinda contradicts federal copyright laws - the one who films or snaps the pic is the creator and copyright holder (general definition case)



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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:03:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
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.



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....



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
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:04:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:
kinda contradicts federal copyright laws - the one who films or snaps the pic is the creator and copyright holder (general definition case)



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.



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...
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:09:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
I was with you right up until the time you tried to tie in kiddie porn and drug use.



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.



Gosh they are probably liberals too



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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:10:25 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:01:30 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:05:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Makarov:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:18:02 AM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:25:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 7:26:49 AM EDT by BenDover]

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Makarov:
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.



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.



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?

Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:36:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Makarov:
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.



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.





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.


Top Top