John Grisham: Prison penalties too harsh on guys who watch child porn

Amadan said:

Okay, I missed that quote. The distinction between 16-year-old girls and 10-year-old boys is unfortunate, but omit the gender designations and I think his point is valid.

Click to expand...

What about his distinction about how old they looked, and how they were dressed?

I don't think it's valid. The only margin I'll grant is that people attracted to 16 year olds are not pedophiles, whereas people attracted to ten year olds are.

Still, it's illegal. Why do we have laws against underage porn? I'm going to have to go with it is, at least by and large, to protect minors from sexual exploitation, albeit after the sad fact of it, as these laws can only do.

So I'm not sure how John Grisham's comment can mean anything other than 16 year old girls are less deserving of this protection than 10 year old boys.

Now why would that be? I fear I know what at least one defense of it might be. I have another "fuck you" for the idea that sixteen years olds like to get it on and should have the option to get paid for the spectacle of it for 60 year olds' wank material.

Michael Wolfe said:

I dunno. But apparently a lot of people who view these images do so via free file sharing. Does that fund more production as a matter of course?

Click to expand...

Red herring. John Grisham described Web browsing. I responded to that.

At least another John, Scalzi, gets it.

Sixteen Year Olds Are Still Legally Children, So Don't Go To Websites Advertising Them Naked, Even When You're Drunk, Charlie Brown.

Click to expand...

Being attracted to 16-year-olds who are dressed up to look older is not the same as being attracted to 10-year-olds. Is that really controversial?

(And no, that does not mean it's okay to act on one's attraction to a 16-year-old.)

Amadan said:

Being attracted to 16-year-olds who are dressed up to look older is not the same as being attracted to 10-year-olds. Is that really controversial?

Click to expand...

Accept that isn't what he said.

The 16 year old girls, in this case, are victims. Being attracted to them might not be the same as being attracted to 10 year olds, but they're still victims here.

Amadan said:

Being attracted to 16-year-olds who are dressed up to look older is not the same as being attracted to 10-year-olds. Is that really controversial?

(And no, that does not mean it's okay to act on one's attraction to a 16-year-old.)

Click to expand...

Does a dressed up 16-year-old qualify as child porn?

Not according to the US Department of Justice:

Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

Click to expand...

robjvargas said:

Does a dressed up 16-year-old qualify as child porn?

Not according to the US Department of Justice:

Click to expand...

I think you're reading that statute wrong, rob.

Celia Cyanide said:

The 16 year old girls, in this case, are victims. Being attracted to them might not be the same as being attracted to 10 year olds, but they're still victims here.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I believe Grisham's argument was that the penalties for viewing and/or having sex with 16-year-olds should not be the same as the penalties for viewing and/or having sex with 10-year-olds. I cannot disagree. Evidently, per Rob's link, neither does the law. (ETA: Or maybe not. I am not sure if child porn laws distinguish between prepubescent and postpubescent minors. But I'm pretty sure statutory rape laws do - though those aren't relevant to Grisham's friend's case.)

robjvargas said:

Does a dressed up 16-year-old qualify as child porn?

Not according to the US Department of Justice:

Click to expand...

I don't understand. Can you explain this? A 16 year old is under the age of 18, and a minor.

MarkEsq said:

I think you're reading that statute wrong, rob.

Click to expand...

You're the lawyer, Mark. I'll defer, but as I read it, child pornography has to depict underage sex. Depicting someone underage as being of legal age doesn't qualify. That's referring to some comments here about 16-year-olds dressed to look older.

Is it even possible to "accidentally" Google child porn?

And if you did "accidentally" open said site, does that automatically set off alarms at the FBI's Child Porn Task Force HQ with a big "So-And-So is surfing child porn!" on their monitors? And then do they send out the child porn SWAT team to arrest the person?

Or in real life, if you "accidentally" go to a child porn site (and most of us would then go "Ew!" and hit the back button), nothing happens unless you REGULARLY frequent these sites and do a lot of downloading of images?

I don't think Grisham's hypothetical situation ever happens where "accidentally" going there once busts you and send you to jail.

I don't think he's saying it was a one-time totally innocent accidental "oopsie," though the "got drunk one night" narrative is trying to downplay it.

I'd guess the friend in question got busted logging into one of those "barely (not) legal" sites, and he's claiming the penalties are too severe.

robjvargas said:

You're the lawyer, Mark. I'll defer, but as I read it, child pornography has to depict underage sex. Depicting someone underage as being of legal age doesn't qualify. That's referring to some comments here about 16-year-olds dressed to look older.

Click to expand...

I think you have it backwards. I believe one of the charges against Max Hardcore was that one one the women in his video stated she was 12 years old, even though she was of age. But in the case of Traci Lords, and the "Sugar Two" video, (those are the two examples I can think of) the content was declared illegal, even though the producers believed the girls were legal and portrayed them that way.

No Pity for the Perverts

Karen Junker said:

Kuwi -- it's kind of like blaming prostitutes for the sex industry, instead of their johns, without whom there would be no sex industry.

Click to expand...

kuwisdelu said:

Not really. Many prostitutes are victims, and neither watching nor making child porn makes one a victim.

Click to expand...

Making child porn makes children the victim. Watching child porn is getting your rocks off to victimized children. Those who demand kiddie porn are as scummy as those who supply it and Grisham being an apologist for the maggots who spank one out to an sexually exploited child makes him no better than them.

kuwisdelu said:

It's more like blaming the pimps instead of the johns. The prostitutes are the children here.

Click to expand...

The key difference is unless they are forced into sexual slavery, a prostitute has a choice. Children do not.

kuwisdelu said:

I wonder how many homemade pornographic videos of adults on the various tube sites were made and posted with the 100% consent of everyone involved and how many people watch them anyway?

Click to expand...

Why is that relevant? In adult pornography, no matter how demeaning, degrading or disgusting it may be, it is typically made with the advised content of the participants. A woman in a 10-man-gangbang may not know how nasty things are going to get, but she chose to put herself in that situation of her own free will.

Do I need to explain why it is impossible for children and infants to say the same? All pornography is not created equally and yes, there are places even porn should not be allowed to go.

kuwisdelu said:

Edit: In any case, I'm not saying I think it should be legal, only that I agree that the penalty is way out of proportion with the crime.

Click to expand...

The crime is repugnant and the penalty is appropriate. I have no sympathy for pedophiles and if they think their punishment is too harsh and I'm cruel, judgmental and intolerant toward them, they're absolutely right.

Grisham is an apologist for these deviants and that is disgusting as they are. There is no rationalization and no justification for viewing and enjoying a child being violated. NONE.

“We have prisons now filled with guys my age — 60-year-old white men in prison who’ve never harmed anybody,” Grisham said in a recent interview. Grisham said there are men in prison who “got online one night” who “probably had too much to drink” and ended up on child-pornography websites, a crime he said a friend had committed.

Click to expand...

It must be a tremendous comfort for the 60-year-old White men who get plastered one night, fire up the laptop, and go one-hand cruising for kiddie porn to know they have somebody like John Grisham looking out for them.

But who's looking out for the kids? Not Grisham who's just another rich elitist snob who thinks it's a travesty that his buddies get busted for enjoying moppets being molested.

I already thought Grisham was a lousy writer. Now I know he's a sleaze too.

robjvargas said:

You're the lawyer, Mark. I'll defer, but as I read it, child pornography has to depict underage sex. Depicting someone underage as being of legal age doesn't qualify. That's referring to some comments here about 16-year-olds dressed to look older.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see what you're saying. The issue isn't the age but the language of "any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor."

Just to clarify on that: "the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive."

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

Celia Cyanide said:

I think you have it backwards. I believe one of the charges against Max Hardcore was that one one the women in his video stated she was 12 years old, even though she was of age.

Click to expand...

Exactly, depicting underage sex. Even when it did not, in fact, take place.

Celia Cyanide said:

But in the case of Traci Lords, and the "Sugar Two" video, (those are the two examples I can think of) the content was declared illegal, even though the producers believed the girls were legal and portrayed them that way.

Click to expand...

And, again, *depicting* underage sex. They didn't. Once Traci Lords' actual age was known, I think those videos became relevant. Prior, though, no one was depicting it as underage, hence not child pornography.

That's how I read the snippet I pulled.

But I'm willing to read how it says different.

MarkEsq said:

Oh, I see what you're saying. The issue isn't the age but the language of "any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor."

Click to expand...

That's how I read it, yeah. If you take a 16-year-old, and make her look 30 (also represent her as legal age), then the work isn't child pornography. If those same people admit to what they're doing, now it's child pornography.

MarkEsq said:

Just to clarify on that: "the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive."

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

Click to expand...

Yes. I should also note that taking someone of age, and depicting her (or him, obviously) as underage, that still qualifies as child pornography, the way I interpret the part in red below:

Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

Click to expand...

If you sell it as underage, the law chooses to believe you.

robjvargas said:

And, again, *depicting* underage sex. They didn't. Once Traci Lords' actual age was known, I think those videos became relevant. Prior, though, no one was depicting it as underage, hence not child pornography.

Click to expand...

No, it was always child pornography. They just didn't know it was.

When her age become public knowledge, the "depiction" was the same as it ever was.

Celia Cyanide said:

No, it was always child pornography. They just didn't know it was.

When her age become public knowledge, the "depiction" was the same as it ever was.

Click to expand...

Not the way I read the DoJ text. The makers of the films would be guilty of other sex crimes, but not of child pornography. Not legally.

I'll defer to other legal authorities on this. I neither have nor claim legal expertise on this. I'm simply applying what I read on the DoJ's Web site.

robjvargas said:

Not the way I read the DoJ text. The makers of the films would be guilty of other sex crimes, but not of child pornography. Not legally.

Click to expand...

In the case of Traci Lords, the producers believed she was of age, and they portrayed her as being of age. They got busted because she was not. Her underage videos are considered child porn.

I don't understand where you're getting the idea that knowing someone is underage is ok, as long as you portray them as being of age.

The problem is that Grisham's 60 year old, white friend went looking for underage porn & got nabbed by the FBI. 16 isn't "barely legal". That would be 18+ 10 minutes.

Grisham's distinctions of "white" and "60" and the moral weight of pedophilia and the relative deviance of prefering girls over boys is all very telling of Grisham and the company he keeps, but the fact of the matter is that if you go looking for sophomore porn, you may very well get arrested and spend three years in jail. Dems de breaks minus time off for good behavior.

One of the things that always bothered me about those photo studios you used to be able to go to at the mall and get 'glamor' photos taken? They'd even do it with kids -- with adult-looking hairstyles (lots of teasing, hairspray, etc that little kids usually don't do), makeup, and off-the-shoulder boas, etc. It always seemed to me like they were almost attempting to eroticize the look of the kids. I know they sure did with the adults.

I'm not sure how a 16-year-old can look 30. But then I'm at an age where anyone under 40 looks really young to me. I've seen men on TV shows (like the Millionaire Matchmaker) who seem to have a preference for much younger women and they seem to be able to tell whether a woman is 20 or 25, so maybe it's a subtle thing that I just don't get.

But even a kid of 16 who is dressed up and made up to look like an adult is still a minor and it's still illegal.

Can't say I feel a whole hell of a lot of sympathy for anyone who goes looking for 'barely legal' porn and comes up with the not-so-legal variety. Seems to me like they found what they really were looking for in the first place.
/opinionated opinion.

Yes, did you catch the whiff of irritation and disappointment (presumably of Grisham's friend as related by his commiserator) that the advertized 16 year olds looked like they were 30. Very telling.

Would that be considered a jailbait-and-switch?

Karen Junker said:

One of the things that always bothered me about those photo studios you used to be able to go to at the mall and get 'glamor' photos taken? They'd even do it with kids -- with adult-looking hairstyles (lots of teasing, hairspray, etc that little kids usually don't do), makeup, and off-the-shoulder boas, etc. It always seemed to me like they were almost attempting to eroticize the look of the kids. I know they sure did with the adults.

Click to expand...

Stay away from TLC, seriously.