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

281–290 of 315 posts

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

#281

Post by etplayer »

etplayer wrote: post #87
retrogradeorbit wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Australia is one such jurisdiction. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-08/fake-simpsons-cartoon-...

From the article: >Justice Adams said the legislation's main purpose was to combat the direct sexual exploitation and abuse of children that occurs where offensive images of real children are made. If he believes this, then why is he legislating that virtual pornography, in fact even hand drawn, of the Simpsons which bear such little resemblance to real people, never mind actually existing people, is against the law?…

Would someone mind explaining why my comment was downvoted, and how I can improve my comments in future please?

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

#282

Post by wildmusings »

paulmd wrote: post #226
wildmusings wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like Peter Singer's approach so much, then you agree with him that one should be allowed to "abort" babies for a long time after birth as well? No? I guess it's not so easy after all.

You're being hyperbolic but we don't allow children to make medical decisions for themselves until the age of majority, and parents can choose to make medical decisions that they know will result in the death of a child (eg refusing treatment for life-threatening diseases due to religious concerns). So effectively yes, this is already the state of things, and there is no serious movement to restrict this form of post…

>parents can choose to make medical decisions that they know will result in the death of a child (eg refusing treatment for life-threatening diseases due to religious concerns).

That is false. Parents cannot legally deny their children life-saving treatment.

Also, I'm not sure where I am being hyperbolic. Peter Singer literally does advocate for the "right" to kill young children for a long time after their birth. So if you say that Peter Singer offers an "easy" moral approach to abortion, I have to ask whether you actually do agree with his logic and follow it to the same ultimate conclusions that he does.

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

#283

Post by 21 »

Udik wrote: post #267
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

The victim can say it was not rape after the event, while being sober.

> one has committed a crime or not depends entirely on the other party will decide at some point in the future

That is already true. In many crimes you need to press charges, and sometimes you can even request the charges to be dropped.

Think about a simple case: a coworker slaps you. Is that an assault? Depends on the exact details and on your relationship with him.

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

#284

Post by coldtea »

jfaucett wrote: post #7

What is the rationale behind defining child porn age The first case is something that actually happened to a friend of mine. He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life. Are there any countries out there that take a sane approach to this moral conundrum?

>Are there any countries out there that take a sane approach to this moral conundrum?

Almost all of them? Heck, 23-17? I don't even see the conundrum at all.

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

#285

Post by nsgi »

StavrosK wrote: post #60
jfaucett wrote: post #7

What is the rationale behind defining child porn age The first case is something that actually happened to a friend of mine. He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life. Are there any countries out there that take a sane approach to this moral conundrum?

> He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life. What third-world country would send someone to prison for dating a 17 year old? I doubt even Iran or some other theocracy would do that. Where was this?

If they are the same sex then... quite a few

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

#286

Post by tasty_freeze »

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.

I gave some examples of common use which contradict your claim.

As for dictators, they are violating international law. Abortion is legal in the US (withing certain parameters), and international law does not declare it to be illegal either.

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

#287

Post by golemotron »

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?

Patriarchy is a conspiracy theory popular in coastal parts of the US.

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

#288

Post by jessaustin »

djsumdog wrote: post #200
rothbardrand wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No victim means no crime. (Morally, I'm using the word "crime" here to refer to a moral crime.) But it also means that the prosecution of such non-crimes is itself a crime, meaning the "guilty" party here is the victim and everyone involved in their prosecution, up to and including the supreme court, is criminal.

Except that child pornography is a Strict Liability crime (same as drunk driving). In Strict Liability, intent doesn't matter. mens rea is irrelevant.

"Drunk driving" is also a horrible category of crime, popularized by odious moral crusaders in order to raise money from parents they terrorized. Its primary role is to act as another input for the "justice" system treadmill to which we chain the working poor.

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

#289

Post by tasty_freeze »

gscott wrote: post #227
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…

And to further take this off topic I would like to mention that every church I have been to (mostly Methodist) never even talk about abortion. It just never comes up. Abortion right to life seems to be a favorite topic of some politicians and liberal commentators trying to ostracize Christians.

This is not a case of Christian persecution. Good for you, you are part of a liberal Christian denomination. But there are more than 100M Christians who strongly object to abortion on religious grounds. In most states in the US, there has been a terrible erosion in the ability to get an abortion, and this is due to political leveraging of the issue with Christian support.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortio...

70% of evangelicals are opposed, while 44% of Catholics are. From that you might conclude that since the majority of Catholics are not opposed to abortion that proves your case. That would be wrong. The church and those who oppose it are far more vocal and influential than those who support it.

Really, this topic is in the news all the time. I don't know how the religious connection has escaped you.

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

#290

Post by jessaustin »

gscott wrote: post #227
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…

And to further take this off topic I would like to mention that every church I have been to (mostly Methodist) never even talk about abortion. It just never comes up. Abortion right to life seems to be a favorite topic of some politicians and liberal commentators trying to ostracize Christians.

The "mainline" protestants made a bit of a Faustian bargain on abortion. Like most religionists, their doctrine is determined primarily by what will generate the fullest collection plate. In attempting not to alienate women who've had abortions, they instead alienated judgmental old people, which latter group has got to be any religion's primary customer. Nowadays they're much quieter with their "abortion is OK" dogma.
Post reply on HN