Well, your question is ambiguous. Guilty according to what? According to the law, of course this hypothetical person would be guilty. Very guilty.
In terms of my own ideal moral boundaries? Well, it depends on the circumstances. I will refer to this hypothetical person as X.
1. If X made/caused to be made the images: Guilty beyond doubt. Lock X up and throw away the key. Sexual assault of a 7yo? Are you kidding? Absolutely wrong and absolutely should be removed from society before more harm is caused.
2. If X did not make the images but contributed to their creation via payment: Guilty. By payment, he has directly helped fund this and future crimes.
3. If X did not make the images but contributed to their creation by other means: Grey area. Could be considered part of a conspiracy to commit a crime. Would depend on the circumstances.
4. If X did not make the images and had no link to the person(s) who did: Not guilty, of course. There is no link between him and the crime. He merely has a visual record. Obviously a promising candidate for counselling, however. To be treated the same was as, say, someone found with 10GB of execution photos/videos.
I wonder what answer you were expecting? I am sorry but I just cannot accept that making a copy of a file can be considered a criminal offence or even wrong.
I consider anyone who rapes 7yo kids to be utterly reprehensible, by the way. That is fucking sick. Lock up anyone who does that, forever, and I will applaud you. But possessing an image of the crime in progress? That should not be a crime, that should never be a crime, that should not even be able to be a crime.
FYI possesion of 10GB of actual execution porn would probably get you a significant jail sentence (I dont think it gets you on the sex offenders register though). Never come across a case though.
The end users though do contribute to creating the crime: they create a market and a community. For example an individual may have innappropriate thoughts related to abusing children and creating the imagery - by creating a community from which he/she can gain access to the material they could well be encouraged to put thoughts into action.
You cant pin any specific blame but removing them from society is always going to help :)
Plus of course you dont know what they may do in th future. Looking at images may develop into actual abuse. Leave that person free? Or put them in jail and attempt to rehabilitate? Not a choice IMO.
Whether the rehabilitiation process works is a seperate debate in my opinion (I would say it doesnt as it happens) but there isnt much I can do about that for now.
Execution porn? When did executions become porn? And if possession is illegal, better round up everyone at Youtube, because I know they've distributed videos of people getting killed.
Your argument that creating a community and market creates demand has some merit, but note that I specifically specified anonymous downloading with no ties to the "community" whatsoever. Would that render it OK, then? If not, why not? And why doesn't your argument apply to, say, news coverage of school shootings, which definitely creates a "market" for horrible crimes?
And your argument about individuals with "inappropriate thoughts" (how sad that we even have to type such a phrase) who "could well be encouraged to put thoughts into action" - perhaps, but our entire legal system is supposed to be based on things you have done, not things you may or may not do in the future.
You cant pin any specific blame but removing them from society is always going to help :)
Plus of course you dont know what they may do in th future. Looking at images may develop into actual abuse.
I cannot disagree strongly enough with the above. If you can't pin specific blame, what that means is that they haven't done anything. What they may do in the future is not something you can arrest them for today.
Using your logic, why don't we, say, go and arrest anyone who looks like they might be in a gang? Who knows what they might do in the future!
You disagree with that, right? So why does it suddenly become a valid argument with child porn? And "because I really, really hate them" is not a good enough reason.
It's a circular argument. We make having these files illegal, because they show someone might do something wrong. Oh wait, they have done something wrong, they have these illegal files! Do you see what's wrong with that?
Rehabilitation? For what? They haven't done anything! Look, if they rape a child, punish them! Throw the book at the bastards, lock them up for life! You have my complete support!
But locking people up for things they haven't done yet is wrong, wrong, wrong. That is not how our legal system works, no exceptions, not even if we really, really hate the accused. That's why, in case you didn't know, Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
You've taken off that blindfold, and in doing so, corrupted the system. That is what makes me angry enough to "come out in support of" something I personally find reprehensible. I don't love child porn, quite the opposite, but I do love the legal system, and this kind of thing is fucking it up.
Execution por: I mean snuff. I assumed that was what you referred to. I dont think images of simple executions would get you in trouble (tho 10G might).
> I specifically specified anonymous downloading with no ties to the "community"
Anon downloadings via P2P usually still seed the content for others. Via websites, well, it's hard to be anon and have access to the sites. You have to show a "face" on boards, IRC, usenet etc to be shown access.
And, anyway, you should take your own advice ;) and do the research. The majority of people do partake in the community.
Fair enough. Maybe I will do some reading. I've been thinking about collecting my thoughts into an essay anyway, might be able to express them better without enraging people.
Despite what it might sound like, I actually have no interest in child porn beyond its corrosive effects on society. I would mount a similarly impassioned defence of the legal rights of terrorism suspects or against drug prohibition. I do not particularly condone drug use or terrorism either. I just don't want populist fearmongering and government overreaction to tear even more of society's freedoms and legal foundations apart in pursuit of these phantoms.
I'll bow out now before I piss anyone off even more.
Interesting opinion. In regards to 4, I disagree, as I believe that possession promotes creation indirectly by creating demand & fueling an already unhealthy mind.
Well, your own unproven theories are no basis upon which to ruin other people's lives.
Your ideas, by the way, could equally well be applied - and are, by some fanatics - to violent video games, and yet I bet you oppose efforts to even curtail their availability, let alone imprison their fans.
I would really like to emphasise that I think that someone who's interested in collecting 10G of pictures of kids being raped is obviously pretty sick. If I found that someone I knew had such an interest, I'd probably never speak to them again. If I had kids, I'd keep them the hell away from such a pervert. But illegal? For having copied some files, but having had nothing to do with the crime involved in their original creation? Those pictures are depictions and records of a crime, but they do not embody it.
The whole concept is ludicrous and I can't believe I am so alone in pointing that out. If you have a picture of a murder, and I copy it, we haven't somehow created another murder out of the ether. If I possess a picture of someone doing illegal drugs, I don't magically become partially responsible for the drug use. I think a reasonable person would agree up to here with everything I said. So why does all rationality fly straight out the window when it comes to a crime that happens to involve a child? The arguments weren't valid before, but change the subject to an emotionally charged topic and suddenly they make perfect sense?
I just don't buy it. You can't cut and paste pictures of crime, and in doing so create more crime. You can't create more crime by viewing a recording of crime. I am utterly baffled why anyone would argue otherwise.
Your analogies don't work. With drugs, producing and using them are crimes. The intent and act of viewing Child Porn is the same - producing or using the produce is the crime.
If someone downloads Child Porn, or knowingly copies it from somewhere, this could be giving someone the idea that they better keep producing it.
Maybe I haven't made myself clear. I am not arguing that "using" child porn is not a crime; it plainly is, in my country at least. I don't think it should be, though, as I have said. Its production should continue to be a very serious crime, for obvious reasons. For what it's worth, I see nothing immoral about drug production or use, and consider drug prohibition another pointless and destructive law.
As for your second point, yes, it might. Or it might not. Either way, speculation such as this does not belong in a legal setting. And if you take your thoughts to their logical generalised conclusion, watching anyone do anything bad at all makes you partially responsible. I don't agree with that, of course, and I doubt you do either.
Anyway, I've said all I'm going to say on this - I was just trying to make a point, I'll bow out before things turn any nastier.
I'm not talking about viewing illegal things as a crime, and I don't agree that my arguments logical conclusion is that watching anything wrong makes you responsible. I'm talking about production and use. Watching a video of taking drugs is not using drugs, it's therefore not a crime and won't encourage drug producers to produce more drugs. Watching a video of Child Porn is using the produce of an illegal activity, could very well encourage more production, and is therefore a crime.
ErrantX's job is to determine the intent of the viewer by seeing if they actively downloaded and used the produce of an illegal activity. If he does his job well, I see no problem with putting people in jail for this crime.
Dude, have you even had a cursory look at the research? I am betting you haven't. I am not basing my words on little data. There is ample evidence for my reply.
Dude, did you even look at that study you linked to? It is about adult pornography. If you seriously believe it, if you think that porn leads to rape, why aren't you arguing against banning all porn?
Look, I'm not an expert. I'm talking about this topic because I believe in certain general principles of freedom and legal process. I have no special interest in child porn beyond its prohibition's corrosive effects on what I consider to be important aspects of society. I haven't read any studies, nor plan to. I haven't read any studies about violent video games causing violence either, yet I reject any ban on them out of pure principle - same here.
Anyway, I think I'll bow out now before some misguided soul calls the cops on me, or worse. I was just trying to explain why I believe what I do, because you asked. Seems we have irreconcilable differences. C'est la vie.
I understand you are taking a philosophical stance on this. It's cool by me.
I disagree on your ban of violent video games though. Once we get the technology to design games with addictive, psychology-changing content, there is bound to be a game that actually causes real world violence.
When that day happens, I will support the ban, even if it's in a sub-section of the population.
In terms of my own ideal moral boundaries? Well, it depends on the circumstances. I will refer to this hypothetical person as X.
1. If X made/caused to be made the images: Guilty beyond doubt. Lock X up and throw away the key. Sexual assault of a 7yo? Are you kidding? Absolutely wrong and absolutely should be removed from society before more harm is caused.
2. If X did not make the images but contributed to their creation via payment: Guilty. By payment, he has directly helped fund this and future crimes.
3. If X did not make the images but contributed to their creation by other means: Grey area. Could be considered part of a conspiracy to commit a crime. Would depend on the circumstances.
4. If X did not make the images and had no link to the person(s) who did: Not guilty, of course. There is no link between him and the crime. He merely has a visual record. Obviously a promising candidate for counselling, however. To be treated the same was as, say, someone found with 10GB of execution photos/videos.
I wonder what answer you were expecting? I am sorry but I just cannot accept that making a copy of a file can be considered a criminal offence or even wrong.
I consider anyone who rapes 7yo kids to be utterly reprehensible, by the way. That is fucking sick. Lock up anyone who does that, forever, and I will applaud you. But possessing an image of the crime in progress? That should not be a crime, that should never be a crime, that should not even be able to be a crime.