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

301–310 of 315 posts

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

#301

Post by etplayer »

DanBC wrote: post #300
etplayer wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As for drawings, the CAJA 2009 section 62 onwards deals with it.[0] As for publishing text online, there was a case of a man who wrote stories and was convicted I believe under the Obscene Publications Act, though the BBC article just says "six counts of indecent publications"[1] I'm sure I've replied to you about this before, actually, not long ago. (Edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904716 ) I'm…

I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that. Your bbc example is telling: he's an admitted paedophile, who was offending against children. The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law. > He admitted at Preston Crown Court to storing hundreds of child abuse images and posting on a paedophile website.

>I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that.

Wrong about what, exactly? Images of children in sexual situations, or rather, as is described in the act, is illegal even to possess. Unless you know something about the act that I don't, or I've completely misread it - in which case I'm very open to corrections - I'm an optimist that the law isn't as hideous as I am reading it out to be.

>The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law.

I was talking about that section of CAJA, I know that OPA is old, but the "lolicon law" is only from 2009.

>he's an admitted paedophile

So what? That's completely irrelevant to any point that's being made. The fact is that he was imprisoned for spreading stories, fiction, and it was through UK law enacted by parliament that this happened.

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

#302

Post by aidenn0 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #286
aidenn0 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Killing of armed combatants is considered justified, as is executions of people for capital offenses. Neither contradict my claim (though they don't contradict yours either).

International law primarily regards the interactions between nations rather than the actions within a nation. It is debatable whether or not a nation that is non-signatory to a treaty has violated a law when they fail to abide by its precepts.

I think most people would claim that murder is intrinsically wrong, and is not bad merely because it is contrary to some words on a piece of paper.

People can disagree as to what is unjustified; one person might consider a death in an arranged duel to be murder, while another might consider it justified. Under the law of today it is unlawful, under many laws 200 years ago it would be lawful.

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

#303

Post by gscott »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #289
gscott wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-opi…

It is really interesting that it has escaped me since I have been to a number of religious retreats, events, and have been a regular church goer for about 20 years now. Maybe it is because I live in California.

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

#304

Post by PhasmaFelis »

mseebach wrote: post #258
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you imagine the archetype of a person with both the desire and ability to throw teenagers in prison for sharing pictures of their own bodies, it's hands-down an old rich white guy.

So the patriarchy is something you imagine. Interesting, although it does confirm a couple of longstanding suspicions in the area.

Do you assert that that's not the primary demographic you believe is pushing things like this?

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

#305

Post by TheCowboy »

jliptzin wrote: post #155
TheCowboy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples like this aren't useful or practical. Society's ethics can and do evolve over time. It's not "crazy" for someone who is 21 to not be dating someone who is 15. You're arguing that the grandfather would have broken the law regardless of it existing, and is therefore innocent. Or that because a child was born out of this relationship, and grew just fine, that it makes it ethical and permissible in the general c…

Ok well what about countries where the age of consent is and has been much lower than ours (Italy at 14, France 15, etc)? They don't seem to be suffering any negative effects although I haven't done much research into it.

I think that's a valid point to bring up and think about. We're looking at more than one person's anecdote and there's a chance of gathering real evidence for constructing public policy.

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

#306

Post by jessaustin »

wildmusings wrote: post #94
ajmurmann wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the abortion discussion is much easier than its made out. I like Peter Singers approach to ethics which sets the goal to be avoiding of suffering. Now the question is easy: at what stage of the pregnancy can the being suffer? The entire abortion conversation is completely ruined by most people wearing glasses colored with existence bias.

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.

I wouldn't argue that we should legalize killing infants and toddlers, but I would suggest that the tendency for the whole society to lose its collective shit about infanticide is related to our discomfort with the legal status of abortion. Ethically, there doesn't seem to be much difference between an infant one day before and one day after birth. Of course, ours is not an ethical society, so killing one is perfectly legal while killing the other will inspire a vituperative media circus, widespread hand-wringing, and decades in prison. Why is that? It seems that mothers who kill their young children function as scapegoats, so that we may have a focus for the hazy sense of guilt that many of us feel about abortion.

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

#307

Post by keldaris »

deorder wrote: post #261
keldaris wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 endocri…

I'm not a medical doctor and not necessarily current on the latest research. However, there is quite a lot of evidence that general anesthesia is fairly likely to cause actual brain damage in infants and young children [1,2] with significant consequences in later life and there are (less significant, but still non-trivial) issues with various methods of local anesthesia. As far as I know, there's a lot of unsolved issues in the field of infant anesthesiology and the general trend is to err on the side of caution.

[1] http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20120820/anesthesia...

[2] https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm364078.h...

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

#308

Post by deorder »

keldaris wrote: post #307
deorder wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 endocri…

I'm not a medical doctor and not necessarily current on the latest research. However, there is quite a lot of evidence that general anesthesia is fairly likely to cause actual brain damage in infants and young children [1,2] with significant consequences in later life and there are (less significant, but still non-trivial) issues with various methods of local anesthesia. As far as I know, there's a lot of unsolved is…

If there is a need for "repeated or lengthy use of general anesthetic" on infants there is usually already something wrong which could attribute to the said symptoms as well. It would be crazy to not use anesthesia on young children based on this warning, as shock (Which usually happens when operated on without anesthetics and the reason the child is silent during and a while after the operation) may cause worse damage.

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

#309

Post by keldaris »

deorder wrote: post #308
keldaris wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a medical doctor and not necessarily current on the latest research. However, there is quite a lot of evidence that general anesthesia is fairly likely to cause actual brain damage in infants and young children [1,2] with significant consequences in later life and there are (less significant, but still non-trivial) issues with various methods of local anesthesia. As far as I know, there's a lot of unsolved is…

If there is a need for "repeated or lengthy use of general anesthetic" on infants there is usually already something wrong which could attribute to the said symptoms as well. It would be crazy to not use anesthesia on young children based on this warning, as shock (Which usually happens when operated on without anesthetics and the reason the child is silent during and a while after the operation) may cause worse dama…

The first reference I linked specifically controlled not just for disorders that could lead to similar symptoms, but even things like the mother's socioeconomic status, etc. The effect was still huge.

I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting simply forgoing anesthesia in life threatening cases, but people might want to rethink a routine tonsillectomy or some dental work.

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

#310

Post by huherto »

13of40 wrote: post #171
huherto wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It is more complex than that. Keep reading.

You're just trying to get me to fill my search history with queries like "age of consent in Juarez" aren't you?

Lol. There is a different crime called "estupro" that applies from 12 to 18 even if consent was given.
Post reply on HN