![]() |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This thread is worthless without pics...er...wait...
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
You should mind your own bussiness. If I saw someone filming such crap I would try everything to stop it. If I saw him distributing files or downloading them I MIGHT do something. If I saw some guy on a porn site Id just say something to the clerk at the desk when I walked out. Creepy yes! I just cant be bothered with stuff like this. [/ QUOTE ] Minor hijack, but I've been thinking about this since I saw this thread yesterday. Now, I'm as against child porno as much as the next man, but there is a HUGE difference between viewing it and actually performing it/filming it. Put aside for a moment the fact that he's in a public place. Until he actually does something to act on it, isn't viewing kiddy porn basically just thoughtcrime? Here's a wikipedia link that articulates this a little better. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Am I a coward? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [/ QUOTE ] |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
OP,
not your problem. Also whatever. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You should mind your own bussiness. If I saw someone filming such crap I would try everything to stop it. If I saw him distributing files or downloading them I MIGHT do something. If I saw some guy on a porn site Id just say something to the clerk at the desk when I walked out. Creepy yes! I just cant be bothered with stuff like this. [/ QUOTE ] Minor hijack, but I've been thinking about this since I saw this thread yesterday. Now, I'm as against child porno as much as the next man, but there is a HUGE difference between viewing it and actually performing it/filming it. Put aside for a moment the fact that he's in a public place. Until he actually does something to act on it, isn't viewing kiddy porn basically just thoughtcrime? Here's a wikipedia link that articulates this a little better. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I found myself thinking about this. Just by looking at a picture of something evil which happened in the past, how can you be held morally responsible for it? This is one of the most famous pictures from the Vietnam war, a screaming girl covered in napalm: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4517597.stm Just because you've seen it, you didn't cause it to happen. In fact, you couldn't have stopped it. You and anyone else viewing it will have a range of reactions, but most commonly anger and compassion. The photographer, we can take it, abhors what he has photographed, and wants you to share his outrage. In cases where you see stuff produced by the bad guy, for example the Virginia Tech videos and pictures, or the kidnapping and snuff movies coming out of Iraq, they want you to be angry that you are powerless and couldn't stop their crimes from happening. By contrast, the guy I saw in the Internet cafe is not powerless. However indirectly, he is responsible for causing the pictures to be taken. They are commercially produced by criminal gangs in very poor countries who know that in the West there is an illegal market for them. Even if the guy didn't sign up, he may have generated click-through revenues because he was on link sites. And clearly he is not feeling anger or revulsion at the pictures; he likes them, he is glad they were taken. He would like more to be taken, and for the trade to keep going. These sites exist because the Internet facilitates commercial exploitation of poor countries by rich. People in the wealthy West can literally pay for crimes to be committed in poor countries for their amusement. And because of the dissociating effects of the Internet, they can pretend they didn't cause it to happen. I think this guy is doing less damage than the chatroom predator who actually meets and harms someone in real life, and there's an issue of what the threshold is for when the guy's life should be ruined / when he should be arrested - probably it's signing up to a site. But he clearly is committing more than a thought crime. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What if you were wrong, what if they weren't under aged girls, just teens or something. I would be very sure before potentially ruining someones life. [/ QUOTE ] I was 100% sure they weren't teens. I could see that much from where I was sitting. But I didn't have the balls to ruin his life, even though he deserved it. I thought it would catch up with him eventually, I didn't need to be the one that set his downfall in motion. If he keeps on doing it he'll get what's coming; if not, and he made a mistake and can move on, all the better. [/ QUOTE ] so you were looking at under age pictures? You dirty little whore! |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just came across this thread when you linked to it from the TCAP thread. For the record, at least in the US and Britain, looking at simple nude images of children is completely legal. This guy (while incredibly stupid) was not necessarily violating the law. It's only images of the children being sexually abused or close-ups of their genitals that consitutes child pornography.
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
Just came across this thread when you linked to it from the TCAP thread. For the record, at least in the US and Britain, looking at simple nude images of children is completely legal. This guy (while incredibly stupid) was not necessarily violating the law. It's only images of the children being sexually abused or close-ups of their genitals that consitutes child pornography. [/ QUOTE ] I really don't think is very accurate. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Completely legal" I doubt it - maybe if they were harmless naturalist pictures. But Russian mafia-run commercially produced nude l0lita websites, showing naked and semi-naked minors posed as if they were in Playboy, though not involving sexual activity - which is what it looked like this guy was looking at - are rightfully very illegal indeed!
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
"Completely legal" I doubt it - maybe if they were harmless naturalist pictures. But Russian mafia-run commercially produced nude l0lita websites, showing naked and semi-naked minors posed as if they were in Playboy, though not involving sexual activity - which is what it looked like this guy was looking at - are rightfully very illegal indeed! [/ QUOTE ] Right, I think we're in agreement. |
![]() |
|
|