New York rules its cool to look at kiddie porn



guerilla said:
That's not an answer to my question.

It's also silly demand side economics which was overturned, oh, 200-odd years ago even though it's still quite popular with leftists like Paul Krugman and neo-Keynesians like Ben Bernanke.
Click to expand...

I thought it answered your question. If there is a demand for child porn, it will be supplied. The supply of it requires victimization of children, which is bad.

This isn't a victimless issue like drugs where the laws exacerbate the violence. Laws or no laws, the supply of child porn is in itself violent. The more people that demand it, the more people will supply it, thus creating more victims.

And if you don't think supply follows demand, what do you think? I don't have time to watch an hour long video, so your own words will work fine.
 
You have to look at law impartially.

Did you actually read the article?

The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image.

"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.
Click to expand...
So my question is, if you visit a website and realized it's a child pornography site so you hit Back. Did you just commit a crime?

Demand creates supply if supplying is legal or you live somewhere where laws are merely suggestions, IMO.

It's still illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote or facilitate child pornography.
 
clyde said:
You have to look at law impartially.

Should watching a crime be a crime?
Click to expand...

Bad analogy, because in this instance you are providing the market that encourages the crime to take place.

A more fitting analogy would be you paying someone (or inciting someone) to assault somebody else. In that instance, you're also guilty since the assault may not have taken place without your involvement.
 
@clyde - You edited your post on me.

To answer your new question, no I do not agree totally with the ruling. They have essentially made it legal for people to visit child porn sites regularly as long as they don't save the images. That is creating a market that will create more victims.

I also recognize the need to protect people from incidental exposure to it on the internet, so I'll admit I don't know what the answer is. I don't think allowing people to view child pornography is a good idea though - we're ever going to agree on that one.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
@clyde - You edited your post on me.

To answer your new question, no I do not agree totally with the ruling. They have made it legal for people to become paying members of child porn sites as long as those sites disable downloading of images. That is creating a market that will create more victims.

I also recognize the need to protect people from incidental exposure to it on the internet, so I'll admit I don't know what the answer is. I don't think allowing people to view child pornography is a good idea though - we're ever going to agree on that one.
Click to expand...

No, that is still illegal. You misinterpret the article or didn't read it till the end.

"ome affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Ciparick wrote. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct—viewing—that our Legislature has not deemed criminal."
Click to expand...
Nowhere in the article does it say that you can now subscribe to streaming kiddie porn sites legally.
 
clyde said:
Nowhere in the article does it say that you can now subscribe to a streaming kiddie porn sites legally.
Click to expand...

I fixed my post, and yes it does make it legal for people to visit CP sites, as long as they don't pay for it or download it right? That's creating a market that will lead to more victims because traffic has value.
 
What about if someone pops a page with indecent images when you access a seemingly innocuous site? Of course you can not help this, but the image/images will be cached and it will/may also appear on your web history. Seems like an easy way to set someone up.
 
Demand does not create a supply.

Supply creates it's own demand.

Say's Law.

----------------

No decent person likes the idea of kiddie porn, but obviously there is a market for it. And where there is a market for it, it will exist. Criminalizing kiddie porn does to it what the war on drugs did for recreational drug use.

You can't stop people from doing things they want to do, and it is very hard to stop people from consuming ideas, media or products into their own bodies if they are bound and determined to do so.

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong at looking at kiddie porn. The crime against the child is not in looking at the porn, but in producing it in the first place (assuming there was not consent).

Attacking the people who want it will just make it more profitable for others to supply it discreetly, which will raise the amount of money in the industry, which will lead people to do even more egregious things to children in order to make a buck.

Think problems out, and really ask yourself if the solution that sounds good emotionally is even capable of yielding a positive result, or if it is possible that the solution might have unintended consequences and make the problem much worse...

Not everything can or should be solved by criminalization. That's sloppy statist thinking.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
Stop sucking his dick.
Click to expand...

and that's the end of this conversation, ad-hominem attack against people that disagree with you? I was going to reply to your post but he posted exactly my point only he did it better. I liked his post and deleted mine.

I have an unlimited supply of dirty diapers, yet somehow a demand for them has not materialized. Your whole theory is as full of shit as the diapers are.
Click to expand...
Read the wiki link I provided, it answers your "you're an idiot, you're wrong" argument.
 
guerilla said:
Demand does not create a supply.

Supply creates it's own demand.

Say's Law.

----------------

No decent person likes the idea of kiddie porn, but obviously there is a market for it. And where there is a market for it, it will exist. Criminalizing kiddie porn does to it what the war on drugs did for recreational drug use.

You can't stop people from doing things they want to do, and it is very hard to stop people from consuming ideas, media or products into their own bodies if they are bound and determined to do so.

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong at looking at kiddie porn. The crime against the child is not in looking at the porn, but in producing it in the first place (assuming there was not consent).

Attacking the people who want it will just make it more profitable for others to supply it discreetly, which will raise the amount of money in the industry, which will lead people to do even more egregious things to children in order to make a buck.

Think problems out, and really ask yourself if the solution that sounds good emotionally is even capable of yielding a positive result, or if it is possible that the solution might have unintended consequences and make the problem much worse...

Not everything can or should be solved by criminalization. That's sloppy statist thinking.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People will always find a way of doing things they want to do. But dont you think somewhere in the webmaster world, we need to draw a line and think morally. Afterall, we dont want to keep bread on the table for our kids out of doing something this incorrect.

Dont get me wrong. I have my share of somewhat crappy money making ideas that work great to my advantage. Ive taken advantage of the kinky adult market that loves to go against the norms of society. But with this, I think I would puke rather than see myself making dough.

Criminalization is something we have dealt with over the past few decades. Stating the obvious isnt modern thinking, its redundantly retarded.
 
clyde said:
and that's the end of this conversation, ad-hominem attack against people that disagree with you? I was going to reply to your post but he posted exactly my point only he did it better. I liked his post and deleted mine.
Click to expand...

You said "headshot" then edited your post and disagreed with his whole point.

guerilla said:
That said, there is nothing inherently wrong at looking at kiddie porn. The crime against the child is not in looking at the porn, but in producing it in the first place (assuming there was not consent).
Click to expand...

Children can not consent to being used for porn (hint: define consent). I can't see us finding common ground on that to even discuss it further.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
You said "headshot" then edited your post and disagreed with his whole point.
Click to expand...

I didn't edit the headshot part, and still agree with his whole point except for Say's law, but that is irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the penal-law.

Unarmed Gunman said:
Children can not consent to being used for porn (hint: define consent). I can't see us finding common ground on that to even discuss it further.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why it's illegal?
 
guerilla said:
Why would looking at anything be a crime?
Click to expand...

tumblr_ls3dsbsnW41qmtqswo1_500.gif


UG, you just inadvertently looked at some porn, does that make you a pornographer, a rapist or a sicko?

I get why the idea of child pornography is disgusting to you - trust me when I say I have no time or tolerance for people who engage in it, but you simply missed the point of Guerilla's question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom