24-03-2002 04:55									#31
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Well, I'm actually using the 9th to question federal anti-child porn laws.

I'm asking why you need the 9th at all in your questioning of federal anti-child porn laws when you have the 1st staring you in the face telling you to, "Send me in coach!"?

BTW, are you seriously argueing that child porn passes the Millier test?

	24-03-2002 04:57									#32
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

While I think it's sick, I don't think pasting kids pics hurts kids, and therefore, even though I consider it obscene, I don't think we have the moral rights to touch it.


Our point is prevention of abuses, not judging people's fantasies and desires.

Wanting to screw a kid, while sick, is tolerable.
Going ahead and doing so, is not.

I think its' that simple.

	24-03-2002 05:36									#33
	Full PM-box? Change here!

No, my argument is that the Miller test is irrelevant, if you accept that child-porn is protected under the 9th, and thus decency requirements are irrelevant - I'm not sure if I believe that yet, I'll have to think about it some more but I'm leaning that way.

	24-03-2002 05:44									#34
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd No, my argument is that the Miller test is irrelevant, if you accept that child-porn is protected under the 9th, and thus decency requirements are irrelevant

*Ahem*

I'm asking why you need the 9th at all in your questioning of federal anti-child porn laws when you have the 1st staring you in the face telling you to, "Send me in coach!"?

BTW, Child porn is still illegal in the sameway child sex abuse is illegal. Regardless of any possible 9th ammendment claims.

	24-03-2002 05:54									#35
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think it should be considered child pornography.

I'm attaching an image so the paperclip shows next to this thread title...

Attachment: 0.gif
This has been downloaded 100 time(s).

	24-03-2002 05:55									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think that creating the child porn should be criminal, since that necessarily implies coercing a child. Distributing (or viewing) child porn, OTOH, should be perfectly legal.

Regarding the legality of child porn laws, the rationale for saying that child porn doesn't fall under First Amendment protection is that its legalization undermines gov't efforts to protect children physical and psychological damage (New York v. Ferber). A justification I don't agree with, BTW.

	24-03-2002 05:56									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Since the intent of anti-child pornography laws is to protect children from abuse, and since I don't see how copy-and-pasting faces onto adult nudes constitutes child abuse, I therefore don't see how this can be classified as child pornography.

	24-03-2002 05:58									#38
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think the idea behind this is that realistically digitally altered images can be used as a defense.

It can be very difficult to tell if a picture is doctored or real, and if they use legal models who look very young for the fakes, it would be hard to tell them apart from real pictures of older illegal children, so why make work? You know, "Oh no officer, these are just fakes. Yeah, that model sure looks young."

But for drawings? LOL there is no way sketches, cartoons, oilpaintings etc should be 'illegal' no matter what's on them, even if they are drawn in a very realistic way or erotic. There are whole bunchs of Greek and Roman statuary and urns that will have to be smashed...

Case: Ya know those little pissing cherubs? What if someone had two ****ing cherubs (the statues)? Or a painting or whatever.

Terribly bad taste, but not a crime.

All crimes should have a victim or victims. If the depiction is imaginary, not a picture of a real event, then you can't arrest them for that. It's not even 'spreading hate' if it's in private.

	24-03-2002 06:08									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Seeker I think the idea behind this is that realistically digitally altered images can be used as a defense. But for drawings? LOL there is no way sketches, cartoons, oilpaintings etc should be 'illegal' no matter what's on them, even if they are drawn in a very realistic way or erotic.

That creates a can of worms when somebody creates a realistic original digital image (not an altered image, but one made from scratch). Then the defense "Oh no, officer, this isn't an underage model, this is just very realistic CG" would apply just as with the digitally altered images.

Obviously an oil painting and a CG image are two very different things, but then how do you prove that a nude model wasn't used for the painting, and where do you draw the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" pornographic art?

	24-03-2002 06:12									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by loinburger where do you draw the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" pornographic art?

You'll know it when you see it.

	24-03-2002 06:24									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

There is no such thing as "unacceptable pornographic art".

	24-03-2002 06:25									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Tom201 There is no such thing as "unacceptable pornographic art".

Yes, there is. We are discussiong one example of it, right now.

	24-03-2002 06:26									#43
	Tired of ads?

That is very difficult. Right now, they can probably detect a 'real fake' if they try hard enough, but as the tech improves you're right who's to say what's real or not?

However, there are images that are pretty uncontestably not real, ie cartoon style drawings, watercolours, pencil, ink, or charcoal sketches, etc.

About the 'real models' thing the question would be real life models doing what? Child models who are simply nudes in paintings, sculptures etc? That famous painting with the two naked boys warming themselves in front of a fire was from life, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Illegeal would be they were having sex, and then he painted it. Hmmm....the 'then he painted it' part shouldn't be illegal though, the 'he made them have sex' part should be...

but what if he had two real models, drew sketches, sent them home, and then used those sketches to draw them having sex? Maybe a sort of fraud or defamation charge....

All things considered, it should be what is happening with the models, and their relations with the artist, that concerns the law, not some pictures.

Thus, an artist can legally paint a picture of kids having sex.
If the kids were imaginary, no legal problem.
If he used real models having sex, child porn (however the act of drawing the picture is not the crime, the child abuse is the crime).

If he used real models, not having sex, (maybe just the faces?) but then combined them using his imagination and an anatomy book, grey area. Again I would say the parents would have fraud and defamation complaints.

This is a difficult area, especially when you're primarily concerned with the real, actual kids and not just some wackos fevered imaginings. I can see why the cops were like '**** it, take em all' but we shouldn't operate that way.

	24-03-2002 06:32									#44
	Got spare money?

This is about exploiting or hurting people, whether it be rape, forced prostitution, or a child being coursed or forced into pornography or sex. The content of the pornography is irrelavant, it's how it was made that is matters.

	24-03-2002 06:35									#45
	Suffering from ads?

@DinoDoc
U mean drawing a picture, that has childporn as the theme and is drawn so good that it seems real, but is not <- the important part
And unacceptable meaning it should be forbidden by law?

Than I say again there is no such thing as unacceptable art.
No harm - no crime. easy as that.

I can draw whatever I want, thats non of police business.

	24-03-2002 06:43									#46
	Support Apolyton

"so good that it seems real, but is not"

But how to tell!! Of course every offender will say it was fake.

	24-03-2002 06:54									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Just like any crime the police has the proove there was a crime commited and the suspect is the one who done it.
Anything else is not acceptable for a Constitutional state (hm hope that was the right word )

Usually there should be some victim, like the child that was used for the pictures when it wasnt a fake. Probably the parents have told the police their child is missing and so on. This way u can trace it for example.

	24-03-2002 06:58									#48
	Suffering from ads?

Every crime requires a victim.

I think reasonable people can accept that. In assault or larceny cases, the victim is clear. For tax evasion, the victim is the sovereign (which in the U.S. means the citizens.) In a car accident, the victim is the person who was hurt by another person's irresponsible driving. If two people are driving badly, then they are each the other person's victim. If neither driver was wrong, then they are simply victims of fate (e.g. Car gets hit by lightning bolt and driver loses control.) This is certainly not a crime, no matter the consequences, since being hit by lightning is not a realistically forseeable event.

To that end, criminal justice serves to defend the rights of victims. If some young girl's face is cut and pasted onto a nude image, she (or her parents/guardians) should certainly be able to press charges against the publisher for defamation of character, or something along those lines. At the very least, a civil suit should be brought against the publisher. The same holds true for anybody whose likeness is used without their permission.

If the girl is unaffected by the image, and she was not actually made to pose pornographically, then there shouldn't be any problem. No victim, no crime.

	24-03-2002 06:58									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Tom201 U mean drawing a picture, that has childporn as the theme and is drawn so good that it seems real, but is not <- the important part And unacceptable meaning it should be forbidden by law?

I thank you for admitting the existance of unacceptable pornography, albeit in a back-handed-convoluted way.

	24-03-2002 07:05									#50
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"I thank you for admitting the existance of unacceptable pornography, albeit in a back-handed-convoluted way. "

umm I thought he was talking about the abuse of a real, live victim?

A picture of itself is not criminal, it is the manner in which that picture is produced that is. And all real life child porn is necessarily produced in this reprehensible manner.

	24-03-2002 07:07									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

@DinoDoc
I never argued that one. Of course ChildPorn (when real, meaning has a child as a victim) is unacceptable and should be forbidden by law.

Im just saying that everyone can draw whatever he likes.

Hm, by the way I dont fully understand the term "back-handed-convoluted".


Hm, we agree on something

	24-03-2002 07:09									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Seeker And all real life child porn is necessarily produced in this reprehensible manner.

Exactly, Seeker. Tom201 just couldn't openly admit that there are instances of "unacceptable pornographic art".

	24-03-2002 07:11									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

BWAAGG..

I said no picture is of itself criminal! You put words in mouths not of your own...

	24-03-2002 07:15									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Tom201 just couldn't openly admit that there are instances of "unacceptable pornographic art

Yup and there arent

With Art I obviously mean drawings (no pictures of real persons).

	24-03-2002 07:15									#55
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Seeker I said no picture is of itself criminal! You put words in mouths not of your own...

Do you not think that the way a picture is produced can make it unaceptable? If so, then I fail to see how I have put words in your mouth.

Tom: With Art I obviously mean drawings (no pictures of real persons).

Is photgraphy not artistic in your eyes?

	24-03-2002 07:23									#56
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"Do you not think that the way a picture is produced can make it unaceptable? If so, then I fail to see how I have put words in your mouth. "


No I do not. It is the way that the picture was produced that can be criminal, NOT the picture itself.

Let's say I killed your mother, and put it on film.

The crime is the MURDER, NOT the putting it on film!

The film is not 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' in a moral sense, only in an artistic sense.

	24-03-2002 07:27									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Hm, now it gets tricky.

Ok I rephrase my statement to:
There is no such thing as unacceptable pornographic Drawings

Hope that makes it clear

	24-03-2002 08:02									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher I think it should be considered child pornography. I'm attaching an image so the paperclip shows next to this thread title...

	24-03-2002 08:57									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Seeker I think the idea behind this is that realistically digitally altered images can be used as a defense. It can be very difficult to tell if a picture is doctored or real, and if they use legal models who look very young for the fakes, it would be hard to tell them apart from real pictures of older illegal children, so why make work? You know, "Oh no officer, these are just fakes. Yeah, that model sure looks young." But for drawings? LOL there is no way sketches, cartoons, oilpaintings etc should be 'illegal' no matter what's on them, even if they are drawn in a very realistic way or erotic. There are whole bunchs of Greek and Roman statuary and urns that will have to be smashed... Case: Ya know those little pissing cherubs? What if someone had two ****ing cherubs (the statues)? Or a painting or whatever. Terribly bad taste, but not a crime. All crimes should have a victim or victims. If the depiction is imaginary, not a picture of a real event, then you can't arrest them for that. It's not even 'spreading hate' if it's in private.

There must be hundreds of websites on the internet that show naked young looking women and then advertise them as "hot teens" and /or dress them in a way that evokes schoolgirls. As far as I know these sites are generally considered legal, probably because if required to do so they can prove that the models were bone fide adults.

If you take the picture of a real child and paste it on a picture of a naked adult you are still though using part of the body of the child and in a way you are inviting or encouraging the viewer to consider abusing the child. The viewer may be excited by the adult's body, but it is the child's face he ( or what the heck, she ) would identify. Could the child sue for damages? Wait a minute, it's a child, so it can't sue. The parents could sue, but then wait a minute, suppose the parent's refuse to do so? Could a parent legally give permission for part of the child's body to be used in such a fashion?

I wonder how the law would deal with images that were digitally created?

	24-03-2002 09:03									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Here is a link on the FBI's standpoint:
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congres...agher062101.htm

Some interesting pieces of that article:

quote: Pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C., §2516(3), the government can apply to a federal district court judge for authority to intercept electronic communications (pager, facsimile and computer transmissions) when such interception may yield evidence of any federal felony. Communications carried out by means of the Internet are electronic communications and thus are covered by this limited authority. However, when it comes to oral communications (those intercepted by means of a concealed microphone) and wire communications (communications intercepted by wiretap), authority for interception can only be granted when the predicate offense being investigated is specifically enumerated in Title 18, U.S.C., §2516(1). It is our strong belief that Title 18, U.S.C., §2252a, entitled certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, should be designated as one of those Title III predicate offenses.

Note: The bolded sentence is rather key here.