Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They view that the images and photos of naked children, or kids doing sexual acts, are "Art".
that defense has never flown when brought to court.
and arguing with anyone who thinks that child porn is Art, is pretty much arguing with someone who has a distorted view on reality.
Then direct your concern to the Houston Museum of Fine Arts and the photography exhibit they current have on display there. While you are there you might find some paintings to burn as well.
No one said anything about sexual acts. Nudity and sexual acts are very different. The problem is that the term 'child pornography' encompases everything from a mother taking a picture of her child in the bathtub to an adult having anal sex with a child. When the public hears the term child porn they don't bother to differentiate. They just give a blanket condemnation, as you do.
I'm not sure why you started this thread, since you've been shown that the the guy in the article wasn't "entrapped" to do anything that he was allegedly already doing in the first place.
Quite the opposite. I've shown quite clearly using the three rules given to me that it was entrapment.
Quote:
He allegedly had 1000's of images of child porn on his computer. And he certainly didn't get it from the website the FBI set up (since it didn't CONTAIN any child porn content). so he was already in engaging in the viewing and collection of such content already.
The issue is not about this scumbag's character. Clearly, he violated the law.
The issue is LE methods and entrapment. Just because someone is guilty does not justify illegal LE activity. Just like using illegal wiretaps does not justify catching criminals.
Using your logic we should arrest everybody because we would be guaranteed to find some criminals.
Using illegal means (entrapment) is not justified in achieving the end result.
Then direct your concern to the Houston Museum of Fine Arts and the photography exhibit they current have on display there. While you are there you might find some paintings to burn as well.
No one said anything about sexual acts. Nudity and sexual acts are very different. The problem is that the term 'child pornography' encompases everything from a mother taking a picture of her child in the bathtub to an adult having anal sex with a child. When the public hears the term child porn they don't bother to differentiate. They just give a blanket condemnation, as you do.
Your selective quote fails to encompass my entire post.
I didn't selective quote anything. I pulled the most important and wrong point of your entire post seeing as its the heart of what you believe.
Quote:
When prostitution includes children, it is child molestation. What then?..you severely punish the child molesters.
Child prostitution is a form of child abuse. Child pornography often includes child prostitution in the mix. Child pornography is child abuse.
Quote:
As to child pornography: Under current US child pornography statutes, you could theoretically be prosecuted and imprisoned for possessing an image of a clothed 17 year old, assuming that a prosecutor wants to argue that the image is presented in a sexual manner.
Please post the law in question. otherwise that makes 100% of all families in America guilty.
Quote:
To put that into perspective, in most US states the age of consent is at or below 16.
Wrong.
30 states the AoC is 16 (not below that)
9 states the AoC is 17
11 states, the AoC is 18
However, these states of rules in place. You cannot be a certain age over the AoC of the minor. (Example if the minor is 16 you cant be more than 5 years older than that minor to engage in sexual intercourse).
and no one in any of the states at any age, can engage in sexual intercourse with someone younger than 16, legally.
Quote:
This means that you could have a consensual sexual encounter with a 16 year old, but if you take a picture of that person in their underwear; you not only possess child pornography, but you have produced it.
You clearly do not understand or distinguish the difference.
Quote:
The problem with US child pornography law is that it combines an overly-broad definition of both "child" and "pornography", with the possibility of draconian penalties for simple possession.
the US law is very clear on who is a child. That is anyone under 18 years of age.
Porn has been clearly defined in Law since the Larry Flint.
Quote:
So, having law enforcement induce an individual into violating those laws is unconscionable.
The guy in the article wasn't induced to do anything that he didn't want to do (considering they found evidence that he already had thousands of child porn images on his computer). and that's where you fail on understanding what Entrapment is.
The guy in the article was sent a spam email telling him that a site (a secret website) contained all the child porn he could view. The email contained a password.
So he would have to
1) Willingly click on the link
2) type in the password
3) Provide his paypal information to pay for the content
4) and download the content
He could have saved a world of hurt if he had simply ignored #1
Can you show us where the guy was forced at gun point, to click on the link, type in the password, then type in his paypal information?
As to child pornography: Under current US child pornography statutes, you could theoretically be prosecuted and imprisoned for possessing an image of a clothed 17 year old, assuming that a prosecutor wants to argue that the image is presented in a sexual manner.
I am at a loss as to how you arrive at such an opinion after reading the statute which isn't as vague as your protend it to be.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2251 § 2251. SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.
Then direct your concern to the Houston Museum of Fine Arts and the photography exhibit they current have on display there. While you are there you might find some paintings to burn as well.
Since you didn't provide the context of the images, I can't comment.
though the museum i went to contained images of families in Africa by a great photographer. It had naked children, but they weren't being exploited or depicted in sexual activities with other children or adults.
I can't find what happened to their children, but even when the case was dropped, and a psycholigist was found that they weren't "sexual deviants", the kids were still kept away. Hopefully, they got their kids back.
Your second link, the suit was dropped ( The district attorney dismissed all charges on June 21, 2006 due to a lack of evidence establishing
criminal intent. (Doc. 74, Ex. 14 ¶¶ 6, 12.) and the family sued the police department (and the township): http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinion...er/07v0307.pdf
I am at a loss as to how you arrive at such an opinion after reading the statute which isn't as vague as your protend it to be.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2251 § 2251. SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.
In 1994 the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (Philadelphia) ruled that there is "no requirement that genitals be visible or discernible" and that "non-nude visual depictions can qualify as lascivious exhibitions and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad".
and it says sexually explicit, or children engaging in sexual activities and goes through the entire chapter of defining what is sexual activities are covered, and what is explicit.
Quote:
In 1994 the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (Philadelphia) ruled that there is "no requirement that genitals be visible or discernible" and that "non-nude visual depictions can qualify as lascivious exhibitions and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad".
Nice copy and paste from Wikipedia.
And if a child is engaged in the act, it's still Child Pornography and still against the law
and it says sexually explicit, or children engaging in sexual activities and goes through the entire chapter of defining what is sexual activities are covered, and what is explicit.
Nice copy and paste from Wikipedia.
And if a child is engaged in the act, it's still Child Pornography and still against the law
Actually, it's a copy and paste from the 3rd Circuit Court decision.
To address your previous post:
By my count, there are thirty-one states with an age of consent which is set at 16 or lower. But, even assuming your number of thirty, that is clearly a majority of the states.
Most states have conditional and non-conditional ages of consent. Conditional ages of consent provide exceptions for instances in which there is a relative closeness in age.
Hawaii, Iowa, and Colorado--among others, allow for people below the age of 16 to consent to sexual contact with some non-minors.
In Colorado, for example, a 15 year old can consent to sex with someone less than 10 years their senior, i.e.-up to the age 24. A 14 year old can consent to sex with an 18 year old.
All states have provisions, which move the age of consent to 18 if the older individual is in a "position of authority".
In general, age of consent laws in The United States are very complex, and contingent upon a number of factors.
The clinical definition of a "child" is someone who has not yet entered puberty. US child pornography statutes define a child as anyone who is below the age of majority (18). Again, it is entirely possible to be prosecuted for a felony under child pornography statutes by photographing a minor...even though you could legally have sexual contact with that person.
As for defining entrapment, I'll take the 1992 Supreme Court definition over yours.
Child Pornography in The United States is governed under Title 18,2256.
Surely you aren't arguing that § 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography isn't a controlling statute regarding child pornography?
Quote:
In 1994 the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (Philadelphia) ruled that there is "no requirement that genitals be visible or discernible" and that "non-nude visual depictions can qualify as lascivious exhibitions and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad".
I don't recall reading anywhere in § 2252A where illegal conduct required nudity . So what is your point?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
