Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know he's Australian but that seems a bit harsh...... ohh.. I see.

Some people have sick minds they cant change that, if they ignore those dirty thoughts and carry on with there lifes there's nothing wrong, but if they act on these dirty thoughts and starting watching child porn or hentai which contains children in it, then they should be charged and hopefully get help, because its a mental health problem IMO, and its about time the government should start doing something about it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Greebynog wrote:With the danish cartoons there was so much idiocy from both sides my brain nearly melted just hearing about it. I fully accept your point on abusive language, I think I'm in just about the same camp, I actually lobbied for the BNP (nasty racist twatbags) to speak at my student union as every other candidate, including far-left ones, were on the grounds of free speech. Personal direct abuse is another matter.

@HBMC: On one side you have a slippery slope argument that cartoon porn leads to real porn/abuses, and on the other that banning this leads to the banning of other less wierd stuff...great fun!

The trouble is, there is a definite slippery slope evidenced in child sexual abuse cases. The persons performing the abuse, almost universally, began with looking at the pictures first, and the sought out harder and harder stuff. The de-sensitisation is the problem. HBMC correctly point out that pornography causes the viewer to see things purely as sexual objects, and so on. And if you are disturbed enough to fancy children (and I'm not talking Lolita's here...I'm talking as young as a *newborn*) then access to this sort of thing is not a good thing.

Free Speech is one thing, but the protection of innocents has to take precedence, surely?

I fully agree, I was just playing devil's advocate a little. From my first post I think it's clear I think this stuff has no place in modern civilised society, and that whatever law (no matter how inane) that stops it's dissemination is a good thing.

Ask anyone in victim services-these guys don't get "help." They don't change, can't change, never change.

Xav wrote:Some people have sick minds they cant change that, if they ignore those dirty thoughts and carry on with there lifes there's nothing wrong, but if they act on these dirty thoughts and starting watching child porn or hentai which contains children in it, then they should be charged and hopefully get help, because its a mental health problem IMO, and its about time the government should start doing something about it.

Being charged with a crime and getting help are on two complete opposite ends of the spectrum.

Frazzled wrote:Exterminate him and be done with it to protect society. He's going to be a predator if he isn't already. They basically have a 100% recidivism rate if caught.

This is one of those things people keep saying that isn't true. Studies done show recidivism is no higher than other crimes of equal magnitude (and much lower than crimes of lesser seriousness). In fact, if I remember correctly it's about 13 or 14%, which is a lot lower than 100%.

More encouragingly, there are multiple factors that strongly influence the chance of re-offence, including re-acceptance by friends and family, acceptance into a community and attendance at support groups.



EDIT- a couple of 1s were fairly imporant.

I just think its right to ban this, images can lead to thoughts, thoughts can lead to thinking of small children as sexual objects, leading to mentally scarred children and more death.

Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

That's right. We should rely on anecdote and hearsay, and none of that controlled study nonsense. Who needs research and learning to help decision making when we've already decided what reality should be?

Meh. Pick a proper study then it might be relevant. Right now you're just blowing smoke.

I'm stating my opinion and could care less what yours is on this point. Unless you're a parent your view is at best irrelevant to me.

Did anybody stop to think that perhaps legislature regarding the issue, as opposed to hamfistedly declaring imaginary people to count as real people when trying them for crimes, might be the better route?

Frazzled wrote:Meh. Pick a proper study then it might be relevant. Right now you're just blowing smoke.

I'm stating my opinion and could care less what yours is on this point. Unless you're a parent your view is at best irrelevant to me.

I'm just some guy on the internet, my opinion shouldn't matter to you, just as yours doesn't matter to me. What should matter is sound argument based on evidence.

This study, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf, found a 2% re-offence rate for sex crimes against children. However, systematic errors in the study find that rate is likely understated by 1 or 2%, so the rate is more like 3 or 4%.

This study, http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Criminal_Justice_Review.pdf, found a 12% re-offence rate for sex crimes against children.



One thing I did notice is that most of the research done was from New Jersey. I'm not sure why Jersey, but I'm not taking any kid of mine there until I've figured it out.

I don't know how free speech laws work abroad, but I know that in the US any content based restriction on expression is held to Track One, Strict Scrutiny review by the courts.

Content based restrictions are things like: "No nudity" or "No political literature" or "No radical islamic philosophy." This is distinguished from other restrictions, such as Place, time, and manner: "No rallies at 3am", "No parades down main street during rush hour". The basic idea is that government shouldn't ban a message it doesn't like, but there it control (to a very tightly watched extent) some of the ways the message is expressed. So while the government might ban massive political rallies in residential neighborhoods at midnight, it cannot ban political leaflets distributed to homes (although one city, I think San Diego, actually tried).

Strict Scrutiny is a type of constituional balancing test, where the government is held to a very high threshold. The government must show a Compelling State interest, the law must be narrowly tailored to deal with that interest, and it must be no more restrictive than possible. For fun, compare that to the normal standard of Rational Basis: Government must show a legitimate governmental interest, and the act must be rationally related to it in some way.

In a very big case here in the US Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, in which a very similar set of facts were set up. A law banned any works in which it appeared to be child porn, not actual children, either through young looking models or computer generated images. The court struck it down because it was overbroad. Child pornography is ok to ban because it has a harmful effect on children, but fake kiddie porn doesn't hurt children. The court stated that just because something can be used for a bad end does not mean it can be banned out right. This was a 6-3 decision, with only Reinquist and Scalia dissenting entirely.

There's an old joke that the US has the best free speech laws in the world, but the most actual restrictions at the street level. I don't know if it's true, but in the US it takes far more than "it might make people become more violent" to ban content.

I must admit to being very disturbed by the precedent set by this case. Ive seen some of these Simpsons images during my surfing. I cant say I was arroused by them, but I did laugh and it wouldn’t have occurred to me that I was breaking any law by seeing them. It most certainly does not make me a 'predator' and I'll take a very strong issue with anyone who claims otherwise.

If he has these in addition to actual 'cp' then fair enough. But if seeing these alone is enough to have one branded as a perv in Aus then I can say, with authority, that Aus law is an arse and overly paranoid. I know this because I've seen the images and I know I am no danger to children.

As to the possibility that they 'may' lead to harder stuff, the state has no business prosecting people for a crime they 'may' commit. If you cannot see how dangerous a precident this sets then I honestly pity you.

Frazzled wrote:Unless you're a parent your view is at best irrelevant to me.

Not every person without children is able to better discuss the subject than you, but it is arrogant to suggest that there is no one who is not a parent that can do so. In the same way that attending college doesn't necessarily educate a person simply having children doesn't make you a responsible parent.

Out of curiosity how many children must a person have before becoming qualified to speak about such matters? Do adoptions count?

CorporateLogo wrote:Not every person without children is able to better discuss the subject than you, but it is arrogant to suggest that there is no one who is not a parent that can do so. In the same way that attending college doesn't necessarily educate a person simply having children doesn't make you a responsible parent.

Out of curiosity how many children must a person have before becoming qualified to speak about such matters? Do adoptions count?

And at what point does the wisdom arrive? Conception? Birth? First birthday?

Xav wrote:I just think its right to ban this, images can lead to thoughts, thoughts can lead to thinking of small children as sexual objects, leading to mentally scarred children and more death.

Obviously children need to be protected, but that line of reasoning you're using there is an awfully dangerous one.

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

Seriously, Frazz? I mean, I know that you don't particularly care to learn anything which you don't already know, but how can you reasonably allow a comment like this to pass by your internal BS detector?

Miguelsan wrote:Compared against how many normal adults that have a history with porno before they don´t attempt anything at all? This, unfortunely very common, argument against porn it´s a personal peeve of me, unless we compare the percentage of abusers using porn against the total porn using population before reaching this conclusion we are guilty of falsifying the parameters to obtain the desired result porn users = abusers.

I'm not making an argument against porn at all(except perhaps kiddie porn). I have many friends who are into porn(and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it occasionally), including my aforementioned addict friend. I'm not trying to make any connection for porn = evil. I am, however, making the connection that a history of KIDDIE porn(not ALL porn, as you misquoted) is evident in most cases of child abusers/rapists(again, just child rapists, not ALL rapists). It is indeed possible for people to make the jump from whacking it to kiddie porn to pedophile to child abuser/rapist when there is a predilection beforehand. Just as it is possible for someone to make the leap from watching porn to a full, healthy relationship. The kiddie porn is a historical step, NOT a cause/excuse/reason.

Again, not saying porn watcher = abuser/rapist/sexual offender, I am saying that abuser/rapist/sexual offender tends to also be a porn addict.

Platuan4th wrote:
I'm not making an argument against porn at all(except perhaps kiddie porn). I have many friends who are into porn(and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it occasionally), including my aforementioned addict friend. I'm not trying to make any connection for porn = evil. I am, however, making the connection that a history of KIDDIE porn(not ALL porn, as you misquoted) is evident in most cases of child abusers/rapists(again, just child rapists, not ALL rapists). It is indeed possible for people to make the jump from whacking it to kiddie porn to pedophile to child abuser/rapist when there is a predilection beforehand. Just as it is possible for someone to make the leap from watching porn to a full, healthy relationship. The kiddie porn is a historical step, NOT a cause/excuse/reason.

Again, not saying porn watcher = abuser/rapist/sexual offender, I am saying that abuser/rapist/sexual offender tends to also be a porn addict.

I see what you're saying, but in your revision, you're really not making an argument. Yes, it's likely that many of the people that will rape children will own kiddie porn, much the same way people who shoot other people probably have anger issues. To argue that kiddie porn leads to child rape ignores the possibility that the same root cause leads to both. Correlation does not equal causation. If you're not saying that you think there's any causation, it would be helpful if you were a bit more specific. It's a common little trick to point out two facts and hope people connect the dots, which is possibly why some people were knocking you're earlier comments.

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

It's important to not conflate being psychologically cured and commiting further crimes. Pedophilia or Ephebophilia are pathologies that can't be cured, but there are ways to reduce the chances of further offenses. In a way it's similar to alcoholism: you never stop being addicted, you can only stop drinking.

Walter Sobchak: When he moved to Hollywood he had to go door to door to tell everyone he was a pederast.
Donny: What's a... pederast, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: Shut the feth up, Donny.

Hmm... Thats a hard one.
Well i have an interesting question to all those willing to ban evrithing they dont like.
Lets start with normal porn, it is usualy used bi nomal lawobiding people as a way to rlieve sexual pressure when the real thing is not available/has a headache, its legal (in a way) and gives adults more opportunities to reduce stress.

Kiddi porn is illegal for the obvius reason that unlike normal porn kids are fored to do it and thus abused. Carton however can't be abused since thy're not alive.

But much as most "normal" men who view porn rarely go on to be rapists, it is likely that the same percentage of pedophyles are afraid to brake the law in a simmilar manner and stick with porn alone.
So if you take away their wayto releve tension what is to stop them from going bonkers and well attack a kid...

PS: Id hate to be in that judje's shoes, because that case sounds like it can give you the worst kind of migrane – hence the weird ruling.

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

It's fairly obvious why they would be statistically insignificant over time, and not at all reflective of the capacity for a pedophile to deny his predatory impulses. In broad strokes, the treatment of existing pedophiles does nothing to ameliorate the conditions which served to create them in the first place. So, even if most pedophiles do not lapse into remittance once caught, it follows that we should see no significant change in the overall amount of the behavior.

HoverBoy wrote:Hmm... Thats a hard one.
Well i have an interesting question to all those willing to ban evrithing they dont like.
Lets start with normal porn, it is usualy used bi nomal lawobiding people as a way to rlieve sexual pressure when the real thing is not available/has a headache, its legal (in a way) and gives adults more opportunities to reduce stress.

Kiddi porn is illegal for the obvius reason that unlike normal porn kids are fored to do it and thus abused. Carton however can't be abused since thy're not alive.

But much as most "normal" men who view porn rarely go on to be rapists, it is likely that the same percentage of pedophyles are afraid to brake the law in a simmilar manner and stick with porn alone.
So if you take away their wayto releve tension what is to stop them from going bonkers and well attack a kid...

PS: Id hate to be in that judje's shoes, because that case sounds like it can give you the worst kind of migrane – hence the weird ruling.

Woah, woah, woah. Most 'normal' porn is nothing to do with rape, it's consentual sex between two (or three, or four...) people, and thus the fantasies involved are about legal, consentual, non-abusive sexual activity. AOK. I believe porn that fetishises rape is illegal, I'm not so up on my porn laws, but in any respect should be. So, people who watch porn not becoming rapists has nothing to do with those who watch child porn becoming paedophiles. If you watch and masturbate to child porn, hate to break it to ya, you *are* a paedophile.

EDIT: Just read that back, it's aimed at a metaphorical person, not calling any of the users here paedos. Just wanted to be clear.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Your studies are and don't jive with real world experience. Ask anyone actually in the field and not statistical nonsense. Link in to the real child predators and ask criminal pyschiatrists in that actual field. "Cure" rates are statistically insignificant over time.

It's fairly obvious why they would be statistically insignificant over time, and not at all reflective of the capacity for a pedophile to deny his predatory impulses. In broad strokes, the treatment of existing pedophiles does nothing to ameliorate the conditions which served to create them in the first place. So, even if most pedophiles do not lapse into remittance once caught, it follows that we should see no significant change in the overall amount of the behavior.

Sure we will. If they are room temperature the recidivism rate is 0. Thus the rates drop.

Greebynog wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:Hmm... Thats a hard one.
Well i have an interesting question to all those willing to ban evrithing they dont like.
Lets start with normal porn, it is usualy used bi nomal lawobiding people as a way to rlieve sexual pressure when the real thing is not available/has a headache, its legal (in a way) and gives adults more opportunities to reduce stress.

Kiddi porn is illegal for the obvius reason that unlike normal porn kids are fored to do it and thus abused. Carton however can't be abused since thy're not alive.

But much as most "normal" men who view porn rarely go on to be rapists, it is likely that the same percentage of pedophyles are afraid to brake the law in a simmilar manner and stick with porn alone.
So if you take away their wayto releve tension what is to stop them from going bonkers and well attack a kid...

PS: Id hate to be in that judje's shoes, because that case sounds like it can give you the worst kind of migrane – hence the weird ruling.

Woah, woah, woah. Most 'normal' porn is nothing to do with rape, it's consentual sex between two (or three, or four...) people, and thus the fantasies involved are about legal, consentual, non-abusive sexual activity. AOK. I believe porn that fetishises rape is illegal, I'm not so up on my porn laws, but in any respect should be. So, people who watch porn not becoming rapists has nothing to do with those who watch child porn becoming paedophiles. If you watch and masturbate to child porn, hate to break it to ya, you *are* a paedophile.

EDIT: Just read that back, it's aimed at a metaphorical person, not calling any of the users here paedos. Just wanted to be clear.

Yet people keep pushing forward the idea that the availability of porn has caused the increase of sex-related crimes without taking into account the increase in Earths population.

HoverBoy wrote:
Yet people keep pushing forward the idea that the availability of porn has caused the increase of sex-related crimes without taking into account the increase in Earths population.

Sorry, what? I've never heard that one before. Aren't crime stats worked out per capita anyway?

When it suits the media that it´s posting the news.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/12/Getting_Away_With_Murder.ART_ART_12-12-08_A1_7GC79M7.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

As you can see in this example, the per capita number is not mentioned at all.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:When it suits the media that it´s posting the news.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/12/Getting_Away_With_Murder.ART_ART_12-12-08_A1_7GC79M7.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

As you can see in this example, the per capita number is not mentioned at all.

M.

That article is amazing, it couldn't be any more scaremongering if the picture was of the bogeyman and had a headline that just read 'DEATH FOR ALL'.

Miguelsan wrote:When it suits the media that it´s posting the news.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/12/Getting_Away_With_Murder.ART_ART_12-12-08_A1_7GC79M7.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

As you can see in this example, the per capita number is not mentioned at all.

M.

That's hilarious. So, the percentage of homicides "solved" went from 91% in 1963 to only 61% in 2007. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the huge advances in criminal procedure and other due process rights in that time. Miranda was only in the late 60's, police regularly "physically interogated" suspects until the 70's, various evidentiary rules were closed off, and oh yeah, defendents could finally demand an attorney if they couldn't pay for one. Advances in forensics make it easier to eliminate people as suspects, making it harder to railroad people. I wouldn't be suprised if most of that drop were divided between "no longer being able to convict the wrong guy" and "oops, the right guy got away on a technicality."