NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/3837

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 10.0 KB

Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3837 news.admin.policy:848 comp.admin.policy:1663 alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d:10336 alt.society.civil-liberty:7039
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!news.funet.fi!ousrvr.oulu.fi!tko.vtt.fi!dfo
From: [e-mail] (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: VTT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:37:31 GMT
Lines: 198

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Dixon) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>>The problem is right here.  Having the child engage in sexual acts
>>should be the crime, not the taking of photos.  The photos are EVIDENCE
>>of a crime and taking of them is just creation of that evidence.

>Should we then issue the message that it is perfectly all right to take
>the pictures?  Does this then extend to the procurement of someone to
>sexually abuse a child so that we can then take pictures of them?

Obviously not.  Straw man.  The taking of the pictures should not in
itself be a crime.  It is evidence of what happened: of the crime and of
the photographer witnessing, failing to deter, and failing to report a
crime.

>>This way we stay away from slippery words like "pornography" which can
>>mean many different things to different people and just ban ACTS of
>>child abuse.

>For the sake of this discussion, I am going to use as a working definition
>of pornography "the taking of pictures, or the pictures themselves, of
>children engaging in sexual acts".  Note that this wording is based on you
>statement above.

Unfortunately, people's definitions vary greatly.  This thread started
with complaints about child pornography on the net, which turned out to
be a photo of a single (almost) naked child, with an inset blow up of
the genitals.  Someone reported that the kid looked unhappy.

>>But it should be the abuse that should be punished not the picture.

>I would like to put in my two cents worth.

>You state that you consider child sexual abuse (having a child engage in
>sexual acts) should be (and is) a crime.  I would like to explain why I
>believe that taking and distributing photos should also be considered a
>crime.

>The person that causes the child to perform the sexual acts directly
>abuses the child.  Even you admit that.
                    ^^^^
I take exception to this slur.

>The person taking the pictures is just as guilty.  In many cases, they are
>the same one.  If different people, however, the photographer either
>requests or condones the abuse.  If they request the action, they are just
>as guilty as the one abusing the child.  At best, they passively watch and
>photograph.  But even then, there is an implicit agreement to the abuse,
>or they would have reported the crime.  Therefore, they are also guilty of
>child sexual abuse.

Thus they have committed a crime without any additional law about taking
pictures.  Get them on that.  Let the case lie upon whether there has
been child abuse.

>(Note that I exclude two classes of people from this:
>undercover detectives obtaining information for prosecution;

Do you wish to allow undercover detectives to engage in child abuse?  I
would oppose that.

>and people
>taking the pictures unawares [such as the ridiculous example given by
>someone else about parents taking pictures of their teenage kids while
>they are away for the weekend] PROVIDED they destroy the pictures as soon
>as they realize what is on them.)

What is the need for destroying the photos?

>The person distributing the pictures is also guilty, in that they are
>paying someone to take the pictures, which IMO is the same as paying
>someone to abuse the child.

If they are not paying for the pictures (as in the case on the net) this
is not applicable.  If they buy pictures showing evidence of a crime and
do not report that evidence, they may be guilty of covering up that
crime, unless they are doing it as part of a journalistic investigation
in which they would have the right to protect sources of information.

If they are previously published photos, there is no problem.

>The person buying the pictures is also guilty, because they are helping to
>fund the entire process that caused the child to be abused.

So is that person's employer for providing money to that person to spend
on the process.  So are the customer's of that employer's business since
they provide funds to the business to pay the purchaser which ends up
funding the business, so are their employers....

>I will agree that the punishment should be lessened as the distance from
>the actual abuse increases, but there should be punishment nonetheless.

Actually, if you wished to stop this kind of child abuse and a picture
showed evidence of it, a purchaser of a publication could report the
matter to police if they would not themselves be liable for charges.

>If you punish the people purchasing the pictures, and thereby reduce the
>number of purchases, this reduces the revenue of the distributors.

But you are not punishing criminals.  You are giving a strong punishment
against someone for buying a piece of paper (or magnetic tape) in order
to hurt someone else.  If you find such people, request from them
evidence that you believe that they have indicating the commision of a
crime and leads to the criminal(s).  Thank the people for being good
citizens and follow the case towards the child abusers.

>If you punish the distributors, this will reduce their purchases, and
>reduce the revenue of the photographers.

Same comment as above.  If they are hiring people to abuse children in
order to get the pictures, they are guilty of conspiracy to commit child
abuse.  You have a handle on them to get cooperation.

>If you punish the photographers, in many instances you will also be
>punishing the abusers.  If not, you will reduce the number of requests for
>abuse.

Photographers of child abuse are most likely conspirators in the abuse
(unless, for example, they take their shots from hidden locations).

>I would also like to make a couple of points.  The above description of
>the effects of punishment will only hold true if the punishment is severe
>enough.  If you, for instance, fine the distributors a couple hundred
>dollars, they will not be inclined to limit their activities.  On the
>other hand, if you fine them a significant portion of their income, it
>will become a financial liability for them to deal in child pornography.
>Keep in mind that they are in it for the money.  Take away the money, and
>they will stop.

If you use them to go after the abusers you will be able to stop the abuse.

>Also, the above description will only hold true if child pornographers are
>consistently investigated and prosecuted.  It will not work to only
>prosecute if enough people complain about a particular distributor.  Law
>enforcement must aggressively pursue these people, for the sake of our
>children.

Let me make a few points.  From what i understand, there is little or no
child pornography (defined as above) being produced in the US.  Most of
the attempts at distribution are made by government agencies, solely for
the purpose of entrapment.  It has been many years since anyone was
arrested for suborning children to engage in sex in order to be
photographed.  The whole thing is a manufactured issue in order to give
the police (local through national) more powers.

The major distributer of child pornography in the US is the US govt.  I
challenge anyone to provide documentation stating otherwise.

This witch hunt against "child ponographers" casts it's net wide.  It
has caught nudists for taking home photos and others who accept young
children's wishes to be devoid of clothing.

"Child pornography" is defined by the government to include photographs
which depict a child's genitals.  It does not use the definition you
provided above.  From previous discussions on the net, it appears that
a non-pornographic picture can be changed to a pornographic one in the
photo lab.  Thus, if you equate "pornography" with abuse you end up
with the position that a child can be abused in a photo lab by actions
taken against his/her picture.  This is absurd.

>Finally, I would like to stress that each time a person is prosecuted for
>child pornography, at whatever level, their prosecution should then serve
>as the basis for going after the person/organization higher up the chain.

If there is evidence of child abuse, they certainly should follow the
chain of evidence towards the abuser.  There need not be proscecution of
someone who hasn't abused any children or caused them to be abused.
For most prosecutions, from my understanding, the "next
person/organization higher up in the chain" is the government.  I.e. the
proscecution does NOTHING against child abuse, just against someone
entrapped to buy something from government agents.

>As with all other posts, the above views do not necessarily reflect those
>of my employer, although I sincerely hope so.

>Bill

>P.S.  I hope and pray that none of my five children ever come in contact
>with you and/or those other posters that are arguing for the protection of
>people dealing with child pornography at levels other than the actual
>abuse.  I am not sure you would have any reservations in causing them to
>be abused as long as you were not the one inflicting the abuse.

You are very nasty.  You have read me write strongly against child
abuse.  You seem to be merely interested in appearances, i.e. photos.
I am not sure that you would have any reservations in causing your own
children to be abused as long as noone saw photos of the abuse.
[My feelings about this statement parallel what i expect yours to have
 been when you wrote your similar statement above.]

>Bill Dixon
>[e-mail]


--
doug foxvog
[e-mail]