[url]http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1089769.php/Mich._court_Downloading_porn_is_making_it[/url]

If this decision is upheld, the logical next step is to charge people who use drugs with manufacturing them.  I have to wonder what these people are thinking.

their logic is if people watch it they will make it. If there is no demand for videos of little kids getting molested and raped then they wont video tape themselves doing it. However that doesn't mean that will stop them from doing that and atleast the guy wanking to it isn't doing it himself (atleast at that time).

yeah that's the thing, it's kiddie porn, not the other kind.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14038.msg143543#msg143543 date=1138469599]
their logic is if people watch it they will make it. If there is no demand for videos of little kids getting molested and raped then they wont video tape themselves doing it. However that doesn't mean that will stop them from doing that and atleast the guy wanking to it isn't doing it himself (atleast at that time).
[/quote]

I don't think their logic is if people watch it they will make it. There's high demand for regular porn, I don't see very many kids that most likely watch it making their own porn films, do you? I think that's stupid logic.

Downloading is NOT making. It is possible to accidentally download something or have someone else download it on your computer and then the FBI raids your house and tells you there's child porn on the computer and also charges you with making it. Is that fair?

I don't understand why it can't be two seperate charges. Seems like they're just trying to increase the sentence of real criminals which impart isn't fair as well especially if they aren't really making it.

you realise that you will not get tracked down for one file, or even a few though right? It takes quite a few before they will notice you. Your probably most likely to get caught if you do it over file sharing networks and your ip keeps showing up and showing up and you are on an isp that has static or long last ips in which the government can easily see who has that ip, or else the government has to go through and see who had that ip at which time which is a pain in the ass. One or two instances is not something that anyone will notice. The people that have been caught thus far have had large quantities of the stuff, for instance when peewee herman was arrested for child porn his hard drive(s) were completely saturated with the stuff.


Also, if there is no more demand for something who would supply it? The average porn watcher doesn't want to see a five year old getting raped... he wants to see young girls (not kids, but like late teenagers) having consentual sex or getting off. The people that want to see five year olds have some issues that need to be addressed.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=14038.msg143567#msg143567 date=1138475520]
yeah that's the thing, it's kiddie porn, not the other kind.
[/quote]

The fact that the government can sell these things to the public just because of what their trying to stop is part of the problem.  If a law like this was ever passed then it could be used to validate other cases where the problem is less severe.  It's the same way with the Google case.  The intentions may be good, but the future result will be far from it.

[quote author=Lord[nK] link=topic=14038.msg143605#msg143605 date=1138492731]
The fact that the government can sell these things to the public just because of what their trying to stop is part of the problem. If a law like this was ever passed then it could be used to validate other cases where the problem is less severe. It's the same way with the Google case. The intentions may be good, but the future result will be far from it.
[/quote]A lot of you seem to be missing the point and looking at it emotionally.  Yeah, child pornography is awful, but look at the implications of such a law.  I'm glad at least Lord and Networks see this for what it is--a way to punish people for crimes they haven't committed just because society is scared.

I love the first comment. The first part of the first comment, anyhow. :)

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14038.msg143608#msg143608 date=1138495008]
[quote author=Lord[nK] link=topic=14038.msg143605#msg143605 date=1138492731]
The fact that the government can sell these things to the public just because of what their trying to stop is part of the problem. If a law like this was ever passed then it could be used to validate other cases where the problem is less severe. It's the same way with the Google case. The intentions may be good, but the future result will be far from it.
[/quote]A lot of you seem to be missing the point and looking at it emotionally.  Yeah, child pornography is awful, but look at the implications of such a law.  I'm glad at least Lord and Networks see this for what it is--a way to punish people for crimes they haven't committed just because society is scared.
[/quote] Let me first say that I am not argueing for this new law. But at the same time to say this precident is going to spread everywhere and the big bad govt will lock us all up for some future law is absurt. No judge is going to let this thing deviate very far from this issues, they have to look at the spirit of the law too.

No, it's not absurd.

[quote]When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.[/quote]

When you give the government an inch of our civil liberties, they take a yard.  That's just the way things are.  If they wanted harsher punishment for people who download child pornography, they should change that law, not stretch and bend existing laws to suit that purpose.  As things stand now, I see this as a serious risk to individual freedoms.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14038.msg143743#msg143743 date=1138584706]
No, it's not absurd.

[quote]When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.[/quote]

When you give the government an inch of our civil liberties, they take a yard.  That's just the way things are.  If they wanted harsher punishment for people who download child pornography, they should change that law, not stretch and bend existing laws to suit that purpose.  As things stand now, I see this as a serious risk to individual freedoms.
[/quote]

Agreed.  The change would almost definately not take place over a short period of time, rather gradually over the years in which the laws extend further and further becomming more widely excepted with every year.  It's basic cause and effect.

I am inclined to disagree. Like I said, I am not argueing for this law. I am argueing that you cant always just apply precident to everything. There are plenty of judges who are I guess would say loose constructionist in that they look at the law for it's intent and do not read it to the letter. They are the ones who would not apply it to situations like drugs and along the way you are going to run into some of them on your way up through the courts because their are quite a few of them. To say that one law is going to completely tear apart our civil liberties is a bit outlandish. What you just said is basically saying to me that we sould never ever have another law passed because it can always potentially take away some of our civil liberties.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14038.msg143757#msg143757 date=1138596056]
I am inclined to disagree. Like I said, I am not argueing for this law. I am argueing that you cant always just apply precident to everything. There are plenty of judges who are I guess would say loose constructionist in that they look at the law for it's intent and do not read it to the letter.[/quote]This guy wasn't charged under the letter of the law or in the spirit of the law, so why don't you clarify exactly how you're interpreting this instance?
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14038.msg143757#msg143757 date=1138596056]They are the ones who would not apply it to situations like drugs and along the way you are going to run into some of them on your way up through the courts because their are quite a few of them.[/quote]What?
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14038.msg143757#msg143757 date=1138596056]To say that one law is going to completely tear apart our civil liberties is a bit outlandish. What you just said is basically saying to me that we sould never ever have another law passed because it can always potentially take away some of our civil liberties.
[/quote]Where did I say either of those things?

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14038.msg143798#msg143798 date=1138652184]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14038.msg143757#msg143757 date=1138596056]
I am inclined to disagree. Like I said, I am not argueing for this law. I am argueing that you cant always just apply precident to everything. There are plenty of judges who are I guess would say loose constructionist in that they look at the law for it's intent and do not read it to the letter.[/quote]This guy wasn't charged under the letter of the law or in the spirit of the law, so why don't you clarify exactly how you're interpreting this instance?
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14038.msg143757#msg143757 date=1138596056]They are the ones who would not apply it to situations like drugs and along the way you are going to run into some of them on your way up through the courts because their are quite a few of them.[/quote]What?
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14038.msg143757#msg143757 date=1138596056]To say that one law is going to completely tear apart our civil liberties is a bit outlandish. What you just said is basically saying to me that we sould never ever have another law passed because it can always potentially take away some of our civil liberties.
[/quote]Where did I say either of those things?
[/quote]

I am not talking about the current law, I am talking about the precident if the man is convicted for producing child porn rather than possessing it. I don't see such a precident being applied anywhere else besides in the area of child pornography all at once or even gradually.
[quote author=Lord[nK] link=topic=14038.msg143744#msg143744 date=1138584922]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14038.msg143743#msg143743 date=1138584706]
No, it's not absurd.

[quote]When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.[/quote]

When you give the government an inch of our civil liberties, they take a yard.  That's just the way things are.  If they wanted harsher punishment for people who download child pornography, they should change that law, not stretch and bend existing laws to suit that purpose.  As things stand now, I see this as a serious risk to individual freedoms.
[/quote]

Agreed.  The change would almost definately not take place over a short period of time, rather gradually over the years in which the laws extend further and further becomming more widely excepted with every year.  It's basic cause and effect.
[/quote]
which is implied by these posts.


The argument I am hearing made is that if this man is convicted of making child pornography, people who posess drugs (just an example) are not going to be convicted of producing them. The precident will not carry over, it goes against the intent or spirit of the law.

If you lack enough morals and conscience to download and watch child pornograhy, you might as well go to jail for creating it. Scum.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=14038.msg143875#msg143875 date=1138691636]
If you lack enough morals and conscience to download and watch child pornograhy, you might as well go to jail for creating it. Scum.
[/quote]Thanks for that totally irrational comment.  It's people like you that make these forums so much better with your relentless emotional appeals and lack of logic.  I'd give you a medal if I had one to give.

but to some extent he is right. It is not normal to get off to the stuff and something needs to happen to the people who do it besids a slap on the wrist IMHO. As for the law in question, I do not agree that they should be tried for producing it (as i've said, I was not argueing for this law in particular), but I definately wouldn't be against an ammendment to possession laws in affect currently that would impose some sourt of manditory counseling on top of any fines and or prison time. You don't want the person to go out and act apon his fantasies once he is out of prison.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14038.msg143916#msg143916 date=1138731740]
It is not normal to get off to the stuff
[/quote]

[devil's-advocate]
What about people who are 12 or 13?  Sure, a college girl is damn fine, but I remember the girls in high school looking a LOT better than they do now.  I'm pretty sure it's not because the overall population has gotten uglier.  What if a 12- or 13-year-old downloads child pornography?
[/devil's-advocate]

we can't very well try them as adults though, now can we? If a 12 year old looks at pictures of another 12 year old I would assume it would be treated as two 12 year olds having consentual sex (though I assume they would still look for the source of the materials). But on the other hand if an 18 year old were to look at a 15 year old, in the state of florida, he would probably get in trouble because the consentual age in florida is 16 (I believe anyone up to 22 can have sex with a concentual partner as young as 16, but past 22 the parnet must be 18).

But still, we are looking at it always on a case by case basis with a judge and jury. I don't think the 12 or 18 year old would do time (but if the 18 year old had a lot of pictures of 5 year olds that would be a bit different).