Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 315 posts

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#261

Post by deorder »

keldaris wrote: post #248
deorder wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I discovered last year that people are actually promoting this. I've been attacked by people because I do not agree with late-term (for no medical reason) and after-birth abortion: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_natur... It is almost in the same line of thinking that infants are not capable of feeling pain and why some operations on them were done without anesthesia: http://www.nytimes.com/198…

> It is almost in the same line of thinking that infants are not capable of feeling pain and why some operations on them were done without anesthesia While that sentiment is certainly a part of medical history, there's a good reason why many procedures on infants are still carried out without anesthesia today. Infants are fragile and most forms of pain relief we use on adults are simply too dangerous for infants. Any…

Is it really that dangerous?

"Key medical objections to infant anesthesia - that it was (a) unnecessary and (b) dangerous - were resolved by the brilliant research of Kanwal Anand and colleagues at Oxford from 1985 to 1987. Making precise measurements of infant reactions to surgery, they proved that the babies experienced pain, needed and tolerated anesthesia well, and had probably been dying of metabolic and endocrine shock following unanesthetized operations."

Source: http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#262

Post by giancarlostoro »

BigJono wrote: post #142
aiyodev wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just being investigated, losing all electronics, losing your job, losing friends, losing family, living in fear for months is bad enough that a framing is probably considered successful in the eyes of the framer whether or not it results in a trial. It's like you're saying the rape doesn't count if nobody gets pregnant.

And god help you if you find yourself in the media crosshairs at any point. Which is even more likely if you go to trial since "paedophile gets community service/fine" is an absolute slam dunk of a headline and nobody other than the courts are going to give a shit whether you violently raped a kid in a dark alley or had someone download 3 videos on your badly secured wi-fi.

> or had someone download 3 videos on your badly secured wi-fi.

Depends: https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/colorado-springs-man-car-...

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#263

Post by eternalban »

timthelion wrote: post #259
adrianN wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with the so-called patriarchy?

Not OP, but I understand the OPs use of patriarchy as to mean a hierarchical power structure which justifies itself with the claim of protecting the weak, but in the end is just a repressive hierarchy.

You have been 'well educated' indeed to equate patriarchy with top down control structures. This will make the bitter pill of swapping the dreaded patriarchy with a technocracy, that will most certainly have a 'controlling' interest in intimate matters, much easier to swallow.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#265

Post by Oletros »

rhcom2 wrote: post #79
glogla wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already know the answer - only US has something as barbaric as "sex offender registry".

That isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registry#Sex_offe...

There is a difference, none of the other registries are open to the public.

And I'm not sure that any of them would put someone that pees in public in those registries

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#266

Post by acjohnson55 »

adrianN wrote: post #196
astral303 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is such atrocious abuse of power. The fallout from this case did not affect nearly enough people. Think of all the enablers of this behavior at the various stages. The patriarchy has much of America in their clutch at various levels of so-called "public" service. Why was this man never reported? Everyone covered up for him. Standard operating procedure for America.

What does this have to do with the so-called patriarchy?

I think they're referring to the omerta-like man code that keeps people from snitching on bad apples. Although I think that's really tribalism, more than patriarchy.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#267

Post by Udik »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #255
Udik wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm not wrong (but I might be), in some parts of the US you can get drunk, have consensual sex with somebody, and the day after somebody else can claim that you have been raped, as you were too drunk to consent.

I don't think you can press a rape charge without the consent of the alleged victim, assuming the victim is a competent adult. Anyone can claim you were raped, but if you stand up and say "bullshit", then nothing can come of it legally.

Hmm. If being drunk means not being able to consent, I don't see how is up to the victim to decide whether it was rape or not. What constitutes a "competent adult" seems to be the problem here, as a drunk person might not be considered a competent adult in some cases. Otherwise, it is tantamount to saying that whether one has committed a crime or not depends entirely on the other party will decide at some point in the future.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#268

Post by phkahler »

Frondo wrote: post #92
phkahler wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> reproduction should be a choice positively made, instead of the default consequence of sex. Wait what? Reproduction is the default consequence of sex. That's basic biological fact. You can't legislate that away.

Reproduction is one consequence of one specific sex act. Hetero vaginal intercourse often doesn't result in procreation, and that's your best shot at it anyway. There isn't really any universal default consequence, just like there isn't a universal sex act. A lot of people enjoy it, some people feel shame, etc. Life is a spectrum.

I'm not the one who made the statement.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#269

Post by timthelion »

eternalban wrote: post #263
timthelion wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but I understand the OPs use of patriarchy as to mean a hierarchical power structure which justifies itself with the claim of protecting the weak, but in the end is just a repressive hierarchy.

You have been 'well educated' indeed to equate patriarchy with top down control structures. This will make the bitter pill of swapping the dreaded patriarchy with a technocracy, that will most certainly have a 'controlling' interest in intimate matters, much easier to swallow.

I remember a sermon about god and fatherhood in which the pastor explained that god's commands must be followed because god loves us and god wants to protect us. The pastor explained god's wrath towards those who fail to follow him as the wrath of love. As an example, he told how one day his young daughter had run into the street and almost been hit by a truck. Afterwards he hit her repeatedly. He said he hit her, and was angry with her, not becaues he hated her, but because he loved her and wanted to protect her from wanting to run into the streat again. To my mind, this fatherlike aproach to power and control IS the patriarchy:

In christianity - god is the father of all men - the pastor is refered to as "father" - the father is refered to as father

All of them are there to protect and all of them must be obeyed.

And it feels to me that the police are also a kind of father. They are also there to protect and they too must be obeyed.

I do see a technocracy as being a patriarchy as well. After all it's not just Xi, but Xi Dada: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnRo9AMT8FI

And he too is there to protect and he too must be obeyed.

Edit: And this is what I hate about HN. I spent time thinking about and writing this post. And the more time you spend writing a comment on HN, the fewer people will read it.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#270

Post by gkya »

aidenn0 wrote: post #228
tasty_freeze wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot to disagree with in your statement. First, you use "murder" incorrectly. Abortion, in the US, is legal, and therefore not murder. Murder is defined as an illegal killing. That is why when someone is given the death penalty, they are said to be killed, not murdered. We say soldiers kill the enemy, not murder the enemy. By using "murder" you are adopting the conflation that anti-abortion activists have b…

I find the definition "unlawful" for murder to be at odds with the common use. People refer to dictators as murderers all the time, even if the dictator unilaterally declared the killings legal. I find "unjustified" to be much more in line with common usage of the word murder.

Dictators usually kill illegally, and protect themselves from the consequences with the sheer power they hold. Fascists kill and protect themselves through the idiotic/selfish mass' silent presence on their side.
Post reply on HN