Can Mis-use of Child Porn Laws Be Used to Destroy Freedom in America?

[ComtedeMaistre]

Most Americans are moral people, and they want to see people involved in REAL child porn be executed. I share the feelings of most Americans.

However, some hysterical activists have taken advantage of people's disgust with child porn, and used it to launch a new version of the Salem Witch-hunts. In Colonial America, innocent people were burnt to death on accusations of being witches.

Are you aware that cartoons are considered a form of child porn in some countries? A man was convicted in Australia for possessing fake nude versions of the children in the Simpsons cartoon TV show:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7770781.stm

I cannot imagine how some nutty people can enjoy nude fake pictures of Bart Simpson and Lisa Simpson. But cartoons are now being viewed by some hysterical people in America and other Western democracies as child porn.

You may say that this does not affect you. But some conservative activists who criticize the federal government, are getting email messages that have links to child porn pictures:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3057652/posts

and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3050908/posts

A few years back, some leaders of white nationalist organizations were sent to prison for having child porn in their computers. Nobody cared about them, because they are viewed as "racists", although they are not worse than Al Sharpton.

Mainstream conservatives are now the target. Interestingly, liberals and planned-parenthood have the freedom to teach sex education in public schools, using sexually graphic pictures of youth having sex. But when liberals promote porno pictures to children in schools, that is not seen as porn.

The only people who should be prosecuted, are those who sexually abuse children, and those engaged in mass distribution of actual PHOTOGRAPHS and VIDEOS of REAL children involved in porn. That was the state of the law in the 1970s. In those days, child porn laws were meant to protect actual children who suffered real harm. Today, governments have assigned themselves the right to break down people's doors, and carry out illegal search and seizure, in the name of fighting child pornography.

When the Nazis and the Communists seized power in Europe and imposed their oppressive laws, they claimed that they were doing it "for the children". Will history repeat itself in America?

[ComtedeMaistre]

Some European Renaissance Christian works of art are now regarded as pornographic. Remember those Cherubs, the paintings of nude little children with angel's wings? Having a glossy book on Renaissance art, which features photos of the paintings of Michelangelo, can now cause you to end up as a registered sex offender.

Freedom loving Americans need to bring this madness to an end. During the Salem Witch hunts, people were afraid to speak out, lest they be accused of being witches themselves. Conservatives need to act urgently, since they are now being deliberately targeted in order to silence them.

[frogjerk]

Some European Renaissance Christian works of art are now regarded as pornographic. Remember those Cherubs, the paintings of nude little children with angel's wings? Having a glossy book on Renaissance art, which features photos of the paintings of Michelangelo, can now cause you to end up as a registered sex offender

IMHO, this is a very sketchy claim at best.

[Still Thinking]

Can Mis-use of Child Porn Laws Be Used to Destroy Freedom in America?

Probably. That seems to be what most laws get used for. I can't imagine why those would be the exception.

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

mis-use of the obamacare laws will do more damage than the child porn laws

[ComtedeMaistre]

Remember the Duke Lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape? We are going to see more of such fraudulent prosecutions in future.

[MeganC]

I imagine that a lot of ‘child porn’ prosecutions have actually been frame-ups committed by the Obama Administration against inconvenient conservatives.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Most of the stories I have read about involve people who were actively engaging in conversations over the internet with children and/or had pornographic images they created on their computers.

I haven't yet heard of a case in the US where the only contention was that they had pictures of naked children on their computers. But of course the law could change, or police could get more aggressive in their definition of child pornography.

It's probably the case that many people have at least one image that can be viewed by someone as child pornography on their computer. Some of these may just be small pics that pop up when the user goes to a link they didn't intend or were tricked into clicking.

We're all guilty of something. If and when the government needs our compliance they will provide the evidence (real or faked up) to do their bidding or go to jail in disgrace.

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>>IMHO, this is a very sketchy claim at best

Sketchy? The Cherubs have a more human appearance than the yellow cartoon children in the Simpsons. If someone can be prosecuted for a nude fake picture of a yellow Bart Simpson, do you think that you cannot be prosecuted for Cherubs?

[DBrow]

The USA does not seem to be one of those countries. I had thought at one time that hentai and similar had been prosecuted, I guess not.

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—

(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(2)

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—

(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(ii) bestiality;

(iii) masturbation;

(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B)  ^[1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—

(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;

(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;

(I) bestiality;

(II) masturbation; or

(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;

(4) “organization” means a person other than an individual;

(5) “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and data which is capable of conversion into a visual image that has been transmitted by any means, whether or not stored in a permanent format;

(6) “computer” has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;

(7) “custody or control” includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;

(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—

(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(9) “identifiable minor”—

(A) means a person—

(i)

(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or

(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and

(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and

(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.

(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and

(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>But of course the law could change, or police could get more aggressive in their definition of child pornography.

Read the law for yourself, from the website of the Justice Department.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_porn.html

[VanDeKoik]

“I cannot imagine how some nutty people can enjoy nude fake pictures of Bart Simpson and Lisa Simpson. But cartoons are now being viewed by some hysterical people in America and other Western democracies as child porn.”

Uh, there were episodes of the Simpsons where Bart was shown naked from the rear.

Who the hell would see a cartoon of Bart Simpson without clothes as child porn? It (and the Simpsons in general) dont even properly resemble a human being. They have only four fingers!

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

used it to launch a new version of the Salem Witch-hunts. In Colonial America, innocent people were burnt to death on accusations of being witches.

Well... no.

I know it is not what Hollywood would have you believe but no one was burnt as a witch in Salem.

[Paine in the Neck]

NSA can read anything they want on your computer. It’s probably prudent to assume they can write to it anything they want as well.

[GraceG]

Can Mis-use of (Insert Law Here) Laws Be Used to Destroy Freedom in America?

Yes, yes it can....

[who_would_fardels_bear]

At the link you provided they don't mention what the penalties are for people who merely possess pornographic images.

It may be illegal even to have just one naked picture of a cherub on your computer, but the government doesn't seem to be cracking down on those people.

This may be similar to traffic laws. They beefed up prosecution of more dangerous crimes such as blowing through a red light and DUI, but they don't seem to be cracking down on speeding any more than they have in the past.

At the beginning of the coke wars they used to drag innocent people in for having trace amounts of cocaine on their money, until they found out that pretty much all money has trace amounts of cocaine.

Maybe its the case that every computer now has trace amounts of child pornography and cracking down on those who merely possess it would put just about everyone in jail.

[PapaBear3625]

NSA can read anything they want on your computer. It’s probably prudent to assume they can write to it anything they want as well.

Somebody can send spam to your computer, containing child porn images. Even if you immediately delete the spam, it remains on your disk until actually overwritten with something else, and can thus be recovered. Thusly, you can be framed for having child porn on your computer.

Or somebody may infect your computer (among others) with a virus. The virus does nothing except very occasionally looking at a website to see if anybody wants to target you. At which point it goes to a site known to law enforcement and downloads a bunch of child porn, making it look like you visited the site at 3am.

[Nebr FAL owner]

Members of the oathkeepers have been getting e-mails via Tor servers that also contain kiddie porn & the mail has been hacked so that it appears to come from a friend. Folks are thinking that the Feds are behind this crap & I wouldn’t put it past them .

[apillar]

A man was convicted in Australia for possessing fake nude versions of the children in the Simpsons cartoon TV show

Especially Ironic considering the Simpson movie actually had Bart Simpson displaying full frontal nudity and was still only rated PG, I guess the millions of Americans that watched it are pedophiles under Australian law...

[ansel12]

I hope he reads your post about no one being burned to death.

[apillar]

It's been rumored that kiddy porn is law enforcements new “drop bag of pot” from previous generations. The authorities raid your house looking for evidence and find nothing...but...looky here a couple of kiddy pics on your computer!