Aussies arrested for downloading child rape vid (3 Viewers)

[Uncle]

 

[EpicFailGuy]

The extent of the child's privacy, dignity etc. etc. is up to their guardian. According to the law, the guardian knows best for the child and is required to make all decisions for the child.

wtf children have rights to you fuckwit.

just cause they are under the age of 18 doesn't mean they have no rights.

 

[EpicFailGuy]

youngminii made some good points, but is he actually saying that parents or guardians have the right to allow their children to be used for child pornography.

It was a bit unclear, but I would put it to you, that children should have certain inalienable rights, that can not be abrogated by anyone, including their legal guardians.

I would actually say that children should have exactly the same rights as anyone else, saying that they do not have JUST as many rights as adults would be inhuman and unfair? Rights by definition are for each and every human being, they aren't privileges.

I think you are exaggerating guardians control over kids and their rights. Sure they can parent and punish, give them a light smack and what not, but that is a natural part of a childs development.
For a child to be raped, it is impossible to say that it's okay for a violation like that merely because the supposed guardian says its okay.

 

[Cookie182]

No. I am not trying to justify it. I think it is morally unjustifiable. But I do not think that everything that is morally wrong, should be illegal.

I am not pro-child porn, just like I am not pro-drugs. I simply believe that the current laws regulating these things do more harm than good.

I think it is a waste of time and resources to track down, prosecute and lock up people who haven't hurt anyone.

Are you the next John Stuart Mill?

(bows)

 

[Cookie182]

Hahaha. No.


I don't understand you. Obviously with an avatar like yours one would naturally assume that you by definition are against freedom yet to a certain extent you advocate & undertone the notion that you uphold the idea of individual liberty.

Now, lets get back on topic.
we have two issues here.
1. The child being raped by person A.
2. Person B watching the child being raped by person A on a PC.
These are both different issues.

Since sex is in its own unique way a private aspect of an individuals life, in should be of no interest or tolerable act that the government regulate or legislate any sort of sexual behaviour. Now, lets look at the issue of the girl being raped. Violent act such as this, of course are classed as crime because an act of violence and non-consensual sex has been performed on another person. A clear violation of this girls natural rights.

Lets begin to look at the issue of watching this crime.
Your position tends to hold that watching the child being raped is a crime because its degrading and immoral and all that yada yada and therefore should be outlawed. Yet you don't even deal with the crucial point: that the good, bad, or indifferent consequences of watching this clip, while perhaps an interesting problem in its own right, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not it should be outlawed. Person B has in no way advocated, been part of raping this girl.
It is not the business of any bureaucrat or anyone in position of power to uphold what is morally correct of incorrect.This is for each individual to decide for himself.

If the governmnet must protect the rights of the individuals involved it is the rights of the girl. Her rights have been violated, her body was raped, and therefore person A will be punished because of the above.


I miss worded that sentence.
Why should the rights of society supersede the rights of an individual? This is an error in social theory where you treat society as if its an actually existing entity. In fact, why is society even treated as a superior figure with overriding rights of its own? epic failure.

see above.

I still don't see how you can justify this position:

Violence aside, the film depicts the girl in a sexual act without her permission so her rights are violated everytime this video is spread.

Person B does not have the automatic viewing rights and harms the girl by watching/spreading this.

 

[Sprangler]

No. I am not trying to justify it. I think it is morally unjustifiable. But I do not think that everything that is morally wrong, should be illegal.

I am not pro-child porn, just like I am not pro-drugs. I simply believe that the current laws regulating these things do more harm than good.

I think it is a waste of time and resources to track down, prosecute and lock up people who haven't hurt anyone.

I'm willing to bet that most of the time when raids are made on people who have downloaded child porn, and who have children, they also find the children have been abused. But since lots of this shit comes from Russia, I doubt their police/intelligence would cooperate with Australia or even the US. Stopping it at the source needs to be the priority.

 

[Cookie182]

<3 JSM

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Pretty much the best idea ever.

He was a great thinker. But see I think applying Mill to this case, still warrants an "interference of liberty" as her self-protection is harmed. The violent act has been done, yes. But let’s suppose it wasn't even rape, it was consensual sex between two adults however the man filmed the woman without her permission and spread it to other viewers. This is a violation of her rights, at least to the notion of privacy. For me, that is how I justify interference here, purely on those grounds.

This notion that an internet user is not "harming" is incorrect as it presumes they had the right to watch in the first place, which without the girls permission to be filmed (never lone have sex, although i acknowledge the rape itself is a different crime), is not granted.

 

[EpicFailGuy]

I'm willing to bet that most of the time when raids are made on people who have downloaded child porn, and who have children, they also find the children have been abused. But since lots of this shit comes from Russia, I doubt their police/intelligence would cooperate with Australia or even the US. Stopping it at the source needs to be the priority.

Evidence? Citation?
Unfounded claims much?

 

[Riet]

This is doubleplusungood

 

[youngminii]

Okay, children have some rights that belong to them and solely to them.
What if a child chose to be in pornography? Are we allowed to watch pornography with the child's consent?
Surely there would be a whole bunch of people saying "Oh no but they're too young to make an informed decision." But then who makes the decision for the children in the case that they're too young to make an informed decision? The guardian of course.
If you can agree with me, wouldn't it then be the same as watching a normal person being raped?

 

[Freedom_]

What is a 'child'?
AGE OF SEX SHOULD BE AT THE AGE OF PUBERTY. No guardian or state has the authority to stop an individual to have sexual relationship due to their moral idea of what is the correct age for sex. The natural age is at puberty and therefore this natural law should not be interfered with.

 

[Uncle]

insane in the membrane

eshayyyzzzz brrroooooooo.

Okay, children have some rights that belong to them and solely to them.
What if a child chose to be in pornography? Are we allowed to watch pornography with the child's consent?
Surely there would be a whole bunch of people saying "Oh no but they're too young to make an informed decision." But then who makes the decision for the children in the case that they're too young to make an informed decision? The guardian of course.
If you can agree with me, wouldn't it then be the same as watching a normal person being raped?

In this context they were raped.
RAPED.

 

[sirenxx]

im soooo confused
so ppl r aginst ppl getin arrested coz its viewed as a thought crime which is like tyranny?
n not against ppl watchin the vid
wow that was a surprise
i feel sorry for the girl. i wuld hate if it were me n then like 9000 ppl watched it as well
wuld make it even worse then it already is
tho do hope if ppl accidntly dowloaded or wateva they get off

hmm seems kinda extreme pushin the whole tyranny thing
at last we get a choice in havin nuclear bombs go off under our feet or not
then again i dno coz im all confused.. lol as usual

 

[Serius]

im soooo confused
so ppl r aginst ppl getin arrested coz its viewed as a thought crime which is like tyranny?
n not against ppl watchin the vid
wow that was a surprise
i feel sorry for the girl. i wuld hate if it were me n then like 9000 ppl watched it as well
wuld make it even worse then it already is
tho do hope if ppl accidntly dowloaded or wateva they get off

hmm seems kinda extreme pushin the whole tyranny thing
at last we get a choice in havin nuclear bombs go off under our feet or not
then again i dno coz im all confused.. lol as usual

You need to make posts with proper spelling and punctiation, this isnt a text msg and nobody wants to read your shorthand.

We have had a thread on this topic not that long ago, basically i beleive people shouldnt ever be prosecuted for what they think. Child pornography laws are about thought crimes. Assuming you are 18, then that video of you being raped that gets distributed, it is perfectly legal to watch that, i would not go to jail for downloading and watching it.

Basically the thing about tyranny goes like this: people are being sent to prison for 10 years because they watched a movie or saw an image, not because they molested some kid or raped a girl or harmed another person in any way, just because they saw something big brother doesnt like. Who cares what the content is, even if it is a crime, it is not illegal to watch a video of any other sort of crime. The reason why CP is targeted is because people hate the thoughts that are assumed to be going through the heads of people who watch it e.g "who would want to watch a child being raped? what a sicko"

For further evidence that it is about having deviant thoughts rather than viewing a crime, current australian laws make it illegal to see an image with underage cartoon porn. Who is actually being harmed here? in addition to this, imaginary fictional erotic literature is also banned if it features under age characters. As you can see it has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling what we think. This creates a problem because we now have to think inside a bubble. The bubble is very large and is defined by what the majority of people find acceptable, but as soon as you have thoughts that the majority don't approve of you are put in prison. That is why thought crimes are very dangerous

the fact is they arent actually hurting anybody, and just because someone has a preference for porn that disgusts you shouldnt make it illegal.

Thinks that would cause me to go to prison for 10 years:

writing a short story for my own personal use on my computer set in ancient greece that features a 14yr old bride[as was the norm then] and her husband on their wedding night.

Cartoon pictures that are erotic in nature.

porn of girls who are 18 or older, but who APPEAR to be young because they are slender and little and wearing makeup and clothing to emphasise their youth.

Digitally manipulated erotic photos to make it appear as if underage girls are naked, even something as simple as cutting out the head of miley cyrus and sticking it on the body of a porn star will have me put in prison.

being bored in class and drawing as a joke a picture of lisa blowing millhouse.

 

[MaNiElla]

eshayyyzzzz brrroooooooo.





In this context they were raped.
RAPED.

 

[izzy88]

Thinks that would cause me to go to prison for 10 years:

writing a short story for my own personal use on my computer set in ancient greece that features a 14yr old bride[as was the norm then] and her husband on their wedding night.

evidence? point me to a law that makes this illegal...

 

[Cookie182]

You need to make posts with proper spelling and punctiation, this isnt a text msg and nobody wants to read your shorthand.

We have had a thread on this topic not that long ago, basically i beleive people shouldnt ever be prosecuted for what they think. Child pornography laws are about thought crimes. Assuming you are 18, then that video of you being raped that gets distributed, it is perfectly legal to watch that, i would not go to jail for downloading and watching it.

Basically the thing about tyranny goes like this: people are being sent to prison for 10 years because they watched a movie or saw an image, not because they molested some kid or raped a girl or harmed another person in any way, just because they saw something big brother doesnt like. Who cares what the content is, even if it is a crime, it is not illegal to watch a video of any other sort of crime. The reason why CP is targeted is because people hate the thoughts that are assumed to be going through the heads of people who watch it e.g "who would want to watch a child being raped? what a sicko"

For further evidence that it is about having deviant thoughts rather than viewing a crime, current australian laws make it illegal to see an image with underage cartoon porn. Who is actually being harmed here? in addition to this, imaginary fictional erotic literature is also banned if it features under age characters. As you can see it has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling what we think. This creates a problem because we now have to think inside a bubble. The bubble is very large and is defined by what the majority of people find acceptable, but as soon as you have thoughts that the majority don't approve of you are put in prison. That is why thought crimes are very dangerous

the fact is they arent actually hurting anybody, and just because someone has a preference for porn that disgusts you shouldnt make it illegal.

Thinks that would cause me to go to prison for 10 years:

writing a short story for my own personal use on my computer set in ancient greece that features a 14yr old bride[as was the norm then] and her husband on their wedding night.

Cartoon pictures that are erotic in nature.

porn of girls who are 18 or older, but who APPEAR to be young because they are slender and little and wearing makeup and clothing to emphasise their youth.

Digitally manipulated erotic photos to make it appear as if underage girls are naked, even something as simple as cutting out the head of miley cyrus and sticking it on the body of a porn star will have me put in prison.

being bored in class and drawing as a joke a picture of lisa blowing millhouse.

What legislation says ANY of them are illegal?

Simpson porn is not illegal haha, you can draw what you want (you can always rip it up), write whatever story you want (doesn't harry potter even have a love scene between 'teenagers'), girls who are over 18 are over 18, it doesn't matter how 'young' they look, the law specifies porn only on age and you could never ever be prosecuted- how vague would that be. I guess as long as the porn site disclaimer says "all models are above 18" your covered.

I think yes, the manipulation of a digital image such as a celebrity (even over age) and posting on the internet maybe illegal as imo it is a fradulent depcition of them and they would have a case under tort.

The question I always wanted to know on this issue is when a girl takes a picture of herself? I mean these laws are to stop the abuse (generally by old men of young girls) but what if the girl wants to sexualise herself, for her equal aged bf?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Complete tangent. I remember reading this before and being confused with point (c).

So, one could be charged for child pornography offences for material which depicts a child as "the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context)."

 

[sam04u]

It becomes immoral the moment pleasure is derived from human suffering. That does not have to be sexual pleasure, but any form of gratification. So if you're bored and watching an 8 year old girl being raped is interesting to you then you fit into that category.

In which case; a thoughtcrime has been committed.

 

[enterspacebar]

Serves them fucking right. Watching kiddy porn is one offence and downloading a rape is another fucked up thing.