Yup. Take em all to jail!
Let the courts sort out who was and was not viewing child porn, NOT the police. Their opinions are too easily distorted by whether you are middle class or not, and other superficial factors (Like whether you 'know' anyone or not).
Right. Judges are never influenced by things like that. [IMG]http://i32.tinypic.com/oi5aw2.jpg[/IMG]
Also, child porn is not free.
And you know this how?
Besides whether or not the accused paid for it is no defence.
Victim's of ViolenceDon't rely on that document for accuracy as to the current law. It is at least five years out of date, and in some cases factually wrong.
Seems pretty up to date and factually correct to me.
In this section, "child pornography" meansCriminal Code definition(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;
(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or
(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.
(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of ninety days.
Distribution, etc. of child pornography
(3) Every person who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells, advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of ninety days.
Possession of child pornography
(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.
(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.
(4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.
Yup. Take em all to jail!
Let the courts sort out who was and was not viewing child porn, NOT the police. Their opinions are too easily distorted by whether you are middle class or not, and other superficial factors (Like whether you 'know' anyone or not).
Right. Judges are never influenced by things like that. [IMG]http://i32.tinypic.com/oi5aw2.jpg[/IMG]
Also, child porn is not free.And you know this how?
Besides whether or not the accused paid for it is no defence.
I have little interest in cueball's obsession on this topic and some impatience that it was allowed to derail a more important topic.
It's not the topic of this thread either, so my impatience is showing.
Take it to an appropriately titled thread that I can ignore, K.
I really don't care for the subject.
Why should such a thread be in the "mens" forum. Is there a mens forum? If there is I suggest it be closed.
Well, from my perspective, because this topic that you AGAIN insist on derailing another thread with IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE to some.
Take it to a properly titled thread for that discussion, please, so I can ignore it, and so you can stop derailing other threads.
It's hardly appropriate to derail stargazer's goodbye thread.
(4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.
[/quote]
Thanks. Very useful. Of course no one is every going to say that they knowingly caused themselves to view such, and the police would be rightly suspect of such a contention. Therefore, they would doubtless, search sieze and charge them, regardless, and this in itself is certainly extremely damaging to a persons reputation, regardless of what came out in court.
Doesn't seem to be too damaging considering one of the men, caught in this sweep, worked for the City of Delta, and has several prior CONVICTIONS from 1997. Moreover, considering the heinious nature of the crime, its long term impacts, the sentence durations seem hardly adequate.
Why should such a thread be in the "mens" forum. Is there a mens forum? If there is I suggest it be closed.
Well, from my perspective, because this topic that you AGAIN insist on derailing another thread with IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE to some.
Take it to a properly titled thread for that discussion, please, so I can ignore it, and so you can stop derailing other threads.
It's hardly appropriate to derail stargazer's goodbye thread.
I don't give a fuck really. If Stargazer wanted to post some inocuous "I am taking a break" type "see you all later" thread, then she could have. She chose not to. She instead used the opportunity to chastise me, as you are doing now, and I will speak both to that, and to the issues she raised, especially if people start saying that I don't have a right to. I have a right to defend myself and make my arguements in support of that defence, both to her and to anyone else who decides to intervene on her behalf.
I don't really care if its offensive to some. Others on the board post a lot of things about the Israeli/Palestinain conflict that I find extremely offensive and in bad taste. Countless times I have seen threads about Israeli violence derailed by endless discussions of the "Suicide Bombers" but I tackle those arguements as they come up. I don't try and "formalize consent" on the basis of the fact that what they say is personally offensive to me.
If we curtailed board content on what is "offensive to some" there would be no discussion, just a bunch of sychophants appologizing to each other.
Seems pretty up to date and factually correct to me.
You are wrong.
The Criminal Code has been amended since that article was written.
For example, most of what the article calls "child erotica" is now definitely illegal, according to the current definition of "child pornography" which you yourself quoted.
You see, it's easy to cut and paste. What's harder is to read and understand.
Who are we talking about now? Surely we are not talking about the thousands of charges laid during "Operation Ore", and the 33 suicides that have resulted, and the later discovery that the police evidence against many of the accused was stolen credit card numbers found in the possession of the purveyors of the child abuse porn?
I am also very curious to know what the Attorney General of Ontario wont let court reporters look at the case file of Ayad Mejid, reputedly a "terrorist" and a "pedophile". An interesting correlation between the political and the criminal in this case, to be sure.
Take it to an appropriately titled thread that I can ignore, K.
I really don't care for the subject.
Hey, I was just responding to you. You expect me to start another thread to do that?
And for someone who doesn't "care for the subject" you certainly seem to have a lot to say about it.
Is it really appropriate to carry this discussion on in stargazer's thread? Could this discussion not, finally, be moved to its own, appropriately titled thread?
The Criminal Code has been amended since that article was written.
For example, most of what the article calls "child erotica" is now definitely illegal, according to the current definition of "child pornography" which you yourself quoted.
All it says about child "erotica" is
Child erotica refers to material relating to children that functions as some kind of sexual instrument. This kind of material may not be illegal to have because it may only have a significant meaning to the pedophile. Some items included here are:
- toys/games
- books/drawings
- letters
- fantasy writing
- souvenirs
- ordinary photographs
None of the above are mentioned in the Criminal Code.
If you feel the need to take a break Stargazer, make it a short one.
Is it really appropriate to carry this discussion on in stargazer's thread? Could this discussion not, finally, be moved to its own, appropriately titled thread?
Ohhh but you don't understand Saga. I started such a thread, specifically about this topic, and you intervened in that thread throwing around such delicate sentiments as:
I think the topic of child sexual abuse deserves better treatment than it has rec'd here, where people are more concerned about their own ass than the crimes against children.
As well you were claiming that the thread was abuot:
I repeat: I am thoroughly disgusted that this thread topic has turned into two threads full of discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse.
So what do you really want here? People to stop talking about this subject, or for it be moved to another thread. Based on your previous sabotage, and extremely loaded and accusatory remarks in the last one, it seems pretty clear you just wanted to end discussion entirely, whatever the venue.
And guess what? Your sabotage succeeded and the mods actually asked that no new thread be started.
No, cue, though from that travesty/incident, I did/do see your point.
The Criminal Code has been amended since that article was written.
For example, most of what the article calls "child erotica" is now definitely illegal, according to the current definition of "child pornography" which you yourself quoted.
All it says about child "erotica" is
Child erotica refers to material relating to children that functions as some kind of sexual instrument. This kind of material may not be illegal to have because it may only have a significant meaning to the pedophile. Some items included here are:
- toys/games
- books/drawings
- letters
- fantasy writing
- souvenirs
- ordinary photographs
None of the above are mentioned in the Criminal Code.
Thanks for following through with this jas!
All it says about child "erotica" is
Child erotica refers to material relating to children that functions as some kind of sexual instrument. This kind of material may not be illegal to have because it may only have a significant meaning to the pedophile. Some items included here are:toys/games
books/drawings
letters
fantasy writing
souvenirs
ordinary photographs
None of the above are mentioned in the Criminal Code.
Like I said, it's easy to cut and paste; reading and understanding is harder.
The code says [color=red][my comments in red][/color]:
In this section, "child pornography" means(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, [color=red][this would include "books/drawings" and "ordinary photographs"; it would also include photoshopped (faked) photos, computer graphics, stained-glass windows, spray-can graffiti, etc.][/color]
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
(b) any written material [color=red][this would include "books", "letters" and "fantasy writing" as well as other kinds of fiction][/color], visual representation [color=red][this would include "drawings"][/color] or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;
(c) any written material [color=red][this would include books, letters, fantasy writing, etc.][/color] whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or
(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act. [color=red][this covers talking books and other forms of speech][/color]
Would "Baby one more time" released in 1998 by Britney Spears (when she was 17) qualify as such an audio recording?
Thanks for the detailing mspector, and I am glad the law closed the loop holes.
I wonder if, by these standards, Stephen King's novel It, Anne Rice's "Beauty" series and her novel Belinda, or Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita would qualify as child porn.
Would "Baby one more time" released in 1998 by Britney Spears (when she was 17) qualify as such an audio recording?
I somehow managed to live until now without any knowledge of that particular tune. Go figure.
But I just watched the video on [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bsniYwSaWg][color=mediumblue][u]YouTube[.... I guess I'm now guilty of "knowingly accessing" child pornography. And I guess there's evidence of it on my computer in my browser history, and a search warrant could probably get the same info from my ISP. So I'm screwed.
I'm sorry to see you go, Stargazer. I'm sure you'll be back, though. I speak from experience; I left babble for a couple of years and eventually returned.
Anyway, I want you to know how much I appreciated your kind words during that "chucking" fiasco.
Frankly, I would say that anything that does not require direct abuse of children as part of its creation to be completely out of bounds to such an extent as it actuate "thought crime" in the law. I would, by the way, argue that what was done to Britney Spears was child abuse.
But when it comes to enshrining patriarchal modes of the sexualization of children in "the market" the law is silent, and I would argue that it distances itself from its roll in asserting the patriarchal model in its everyday practice by criminalizing indivduals. Many of these individuals are clearly guilty and there is not defence for their crimes, but the idea that the law is selflessly pursuing an anti-patriarchal anti-capitalist agenda in it's pursuit of infividual child abusers is absurd.
I wonder if, by these standards, Stephen King's novel It, Anne Rice's "Beauty" series and her novel Belinda, or Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita would qualify as child porn.
Yes. You might well wonder.
Civil libertarians raised exactly those questions when the government was amending the Criminal Code to get rid of the defence of "artistic merit", but of course they were shouted down and denounced as soft on child abuse.
Is it really appropriate to carry this discussion on in stargazer's thread? Could this discussion not, finally, be moved to its own, appropriately titled thread?
Ohhh but you don't understand Saga. I started such a thread, specifically about this topic, and you intervened in that thread throwing around such delicate sentiments as:
I think the topic of child sexual abuse deserves better treatment than it has rec'd here, where people are more concerned about their own ass than the crimes against children.As well you were claiming that the thread was abuot:
I repeat: I am thoroughly disgusted that this thread topic has turned into two threads full of discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse.So what do you really want here? People to stop talking about this subject, or for it be moved to another thread. Based on your previous sabotage, and extremely loaded and accusatory remarks in the last one, it seems pretty clear you just wanted to end discussion entirely, whatever the venue.
And guess what? Your sabotage succeeded and the mods actually asked that no new thread be started.
I have repeatedly suggested that you have the discussion in an appropriately titled thread. I never asked for it to be closed down or prevented. The second thread you refer to had the same name as the first one. How was one to know it was a different topic? I sure didn't, but then I didn't wade through all the gory details, not being interested in your discussion.
Why not a brand new start somewhere else? mods?
I never tried to "sabotage" 
, just put it somewhere appropriate.
I assure you, I will ignore the new thread. That's what I've been trying to do (since I've already said what I have to say), but it keeps popping up in other threads!
The thread title vaguely referred to the first in as much as I used the first three words from it, to indicate its relationship, but leaving the question of who was being arrested and for what up in the air. It did not specifically reference the story of the first. A little bit of a "Swiftian" literary reference, no more, and certainly nothing worse than any of countless allusions often denied by Martin Dufresne. If you bothered reading the OP you would see that the thread was entirely about the technical aspects of these prosecutions. That was explicit.
Your interventions were sabotage. You are now saying that it would have ok to have a thread called "discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse", and that would have been ok?
Clearly you objected to the content of discussion in whatever form it took, regardless of the title and what was contained in the OP. In other words, you are bullshitting.
As I have noted before, the libertarian philosophy, mainly, if not specifically, benefits white males, as such, I tend to disregard anything they have to say, as what they say is usually only indicative of looking after own interests.
Anyhow...this thread has devolved recently into a place of great distress and discomfort, so I am outta it.
I am sorry Remind, how does drawing sexualized images of children for ones own personal amusement constitute child abuse? After all, you made a big deal about the differentiation between Heroin use, as a "victimless" crime, and the purchase of child abuse images. Where is the victim in the case of someone who draws dirty greco-roman images of young boys or writes lewd stories about children in their journal?
Thanks for the detailing mspector, and I am glad the law closed the loop holes.
Closing what you call the "loop holes" did nothing to curb actual child abuse.
So why are you glad? Do you think people should be prevented, or at least discouraged, from reading, for example, [i]Lolita[/i]?
ETA: OOPS! I posted this before I had read your standard "thread flounce", so don't feel you have to come back and answer.
I wouldn't call it closing up the loopholes, I would calling it opening up the flood gates to limitless prosecutions on morality crimes.
Stargazer, I've been away for a while and missed most of the toxic stuff - glad I did - and I think you know how sorry I am to see that it has caused you to take a break. Please use the break (and not for too long) to come back with all your passion intact and renewed. I'll miss you.
The thread title vaguely referred to the first in as much as I used the first three words from it, to indicate its relationship, but leaving the question of who was being arrested and for what up in the air. It did not specifically reference the story of the first. A little bit of a "Swiftian" literary reference, no more, and certainly nothing worse than any of countless allusions often denied by Martin Dufresne. If you bothered reading the OP you would see that the thread was entirely about the technical aspects of these prosecutions. That was explicit.
Your interventions were sabotage. You are now saying that it would have ok to have a thread called "discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse", and that would have been ok?
Clearly you objected to the content of discussion in whatever form it took, regardless of the title and what was contained in the OP. In other words, you are bullshitting.
Yes, I have no interest in your topic as it is offensive to me, but I really don't care if you have the discussion.
That's why I keep asking that you move it somewhere appropriate, since this is at least twice you have taken over another thread, and the second one looked misleadingly like a continuation of the first, so excuse me for "sabotaging", but I thought I was the one who was on topic.
It's too late now, of course, since this thread is also compromised.
Carry on.
The code says [color=red][my comments in red][/color]:
Um, which is exactly what is quoted on their fully up-to-date site. Minus your comments in red. Were they supposed to include M Spector's interpretation, too? WTF? There's nothing out of date about the site that remind referenced.
Don't worry. No one is going to ban Lolita, Spector. That is a property held by a majpr publishing company and makes substantial profit for the right people. If they did that, it would require that they take steps to prevent the recording industry and MTV and the fashion industry from sexually exploiting young teens, and making profits for the right people.
Profit (in the right hands) = Artistic Merit.
Yes, I have no interest in your topic as it is offensive to me, but I really don't care if you have the discussion.
You are now saying that it would have ok to have a thread called "discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse", and that would have been ok?
Yes or no?
Actually, the Britney Spears song and video, as Cueball suggests, is a good example of how child porn is normalized and popularized in pop culture. Good point.
And I'm not sure I ever grasped the full literary value of "Lolita", so if it qualifies, I wouldn't miss it. But it was created in a different era, when there were few legal or moral codes about abusing children.
1) I believe that Saga has contributed greatly to the Aboriginal forum, and that she was right in her assessment of what happened in the kiddie rape thread. However, it is quite clear to me that she has a major problem with Babble as a whole, and me and Michelle in particular. I also don't think it is fair nor wise to have let her spew her rantings for 100 posts in the Babble Reactions thread. I think she has been given far too much leeway. Saga is a big part of why I am leaving.
I am sure this makes her happy.
Not at all. (Check your pm's)
Um, which is exactly what is quoted on their fully up-to-date site. Minus your comments in red. Were they supposed to include M Spector's interpretation, too? WTF? There's nothing out of date about the site that remind referenced.
I said the article was out of date. I made no comment on the site itself.
You will note that the article only quotes paragraphs a and b of the definition of child pronography, and not paragraphs c and d which were added later.
And why the hell are you so keen to establish that the article was up-to-date? What personal stake do you have in proving that I am wrong about making the observation that the article was out of date? Is this really something you feel the need to fight with me about?
Actually, the Britney Spears song and video, as Cueball suggests, is a good example of how child porn is normalized and popularized in pop culture. Good point.
No joke. But this point is not just about "normalization" and "popularization", this is about actual child abuse that goes on the popular music industry, and the abuse begins with Britney at 15, lets not forget. She isn't just a model pretending to be 17, she is 17.
Yes, I have no interest in your topic as it is offensive to me, but I really don't care if you have the discussion.
You are now saying that it would have ok to have a thread called "discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse", and that would have been ok?
Yes or no?
saga quotes cueball ...
I don't give a fuck really.
It was your dismissive tone and your selection of an insignificant, and imo, inaccurate detail seemingly just to try to invalidate remind's source.
And I'm not sure I ever grasped the full literary value of "Lolita", so if it qualifies, I wouldn't miss it.
[i][b]First they came to burn Lolita and I didn't speak up because I never grasped the full literary value of it.
Then they came for...[/b][/i]
.
ETA: A propos of nothing, am I the only one who sees that after post #54 in this thread the posts ceased to alternate with white-and-grey backgrounds?
Then they came for...[/b][/i]
Teletubbies. And [i]then[/i] I got upset.
And I'm not sure I ever grasped the full literary value of "Lolita", so if it qualifies, I wouldn't miss it.
[i][b]First they came to burn Lolita and I didn't speak up because I never grasped the full literary value of it.
Then they came for...[/b][/i]
Charles Bukowski of course.
Yes, I have no interest in your topic as it is offensive to me, but I really don't care if you have the discussion.
You are now saying that it would have ok to have a thread called "discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse", and that would have been ok?
Yes or no?
saga quotes cueball ...
I don't give a fuck really.
Fat chance. Saga ducks a straight question based on an exact quote of her words. Nothing more. But you are right to evade this question because I am directly calling you out on your smear, and your bullshit cover up of your smears.
Two statements Cueball made:
Frankly, I would say that anything that does not require direct abuse of children as part of its creation to be completely out of bounds to such an extent as it actuate "thought crime" in the law.
This wouldn't cover such things that "advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years". I think this is an important clause.
But
How does drawing sexualized images of children for ones own personal amusement constitute child abuse?... Where is the victim in the case of someone who draws dirty greco-roman images of young boys or writes lewd stories about children in their journal?
is an interesting question, and we touched on this in a much older thread which I don't think I can find now. Current laws I guess do criminalize such depictions, but should they? I don't know. This would be an interesting question for further discussion, as we never got there before.
I am sorry Remind, how does drawing sexualized images of children for ones own personal amusement constitute child abuse? After all, you made a big deal about the differentiation between Heroin use, as a "victimless" crime, and the purchase of child abuse images. Where is the victim in the case of someone who draws dirty greco-roman images of young boys or writes lewd stories about children in their journal?
Now you're creeping me out.
I am not even sure how the first relates. But the second might be pondered in the light of such a thing as murder. Does the depiction of murder in art constitute muder, is Picasso's Guernica a "war crime", in and of itself? Writing something like "Crime and Punishment" punishable as murder because Dostoyevsky writes from the perspective of the criminal?
Lets get real here folks.
We have launched ourselves into an Orwellian world of thought crime, as soon as you start proscribing what it is that people may think about, write about or draw, outside of the actions that they do that are harmful to others.
This needs to be discussed?
I guess I should have been spending more time on these "moral" isssues threads, because I have only recently become aware how far off from principled morality a good deal of the population of this web site has strayed.
Babble = ethics fail.
Exactly Saga. Your entire thing is about you being "creeped out". It's got nothing to do with actual harm done to actual people or children. You are creeping me out. It is you who wants to punish people for having weird thoughts. It speaks of a kind of Christo-moralist fascist sadism that you embody.
There is nothing objective about what you are talking about. Its all just your own personal "issues", nothing to do with child abuse, whatsoever.
I have never found mysef accidentally looking at child porn, as far as I know. I have found myself at a public internet cafe trying to stop trojaned web-browser hijacks trying to take me to porn sites that I have not asked for. I didn't spend a lot of time trying to figure out what age the "models" were. Should I have? Is that clear enough for you?
![http://i32.tinypic.com/oi5aw2.jpg[/IMG]](http://i32.tinypic.com/oi5aw2.jpg[/IMG]){kind=link}