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

Karen Junker

Live a little. Write a lot.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
551
Location
Bellevue, WA
Website
www.CascadeWriters.com
I know. I'm pretty sure I saw Honey Boo Boo and her mom when I was in Hawaii a couple weeks ago. I've never watched their show, but even the other channels advertise it. Don't even get me started on toddler pageants.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
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.

There's a lot of things that aren't okay, even if they are legal. I'm making a legal argument as best I can. Not a moral one.

None of it is okay. That's why I pointed out that they may be guilty of other sex crimes. The question I'm referring to is whether it gets the perpetrators jail time under child pornography statutes.

I could very well be misreading the law, but as I read the law, if the sexually explicit activity isn't *depicting* a minor in said act, then it's not child pornography. Not by federal law as I read it. Having a minor engage in that activity brings a whole host of other laws into play. And I'm all for prosecuting those.

And if anyone has an actual citation that counters what I see on the DoJ's Web site, I welcome it.
 
Last edited:

Karen Junker

Live a little. Write a lot.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
551
Location
Bellevue, WA
Website
www.CascadeWriters.com
Yeah, Rob -- I'm not a lawyer, but I was a CPS caseworker. It's still child porn if the child is under 18, even if they are dressed up to look older.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
Red herring. John Grisham described Web browsing. I responded to that.

Sure, I understand what Grisham's talking about, I'm just wondering about the general justification for prosecuting people for looking at child porn. It seems like a pretty common argument is that it fuels the market for further production of child porn, but it seems doubtful to me that that should be taken for granted in any particular case.
 

Karen Junker

Live a little. Write a lot.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
551
Location
Bellevue, WA
Website
www.CascadeWriters.com
Didn't you have to take Economics in high school? It's supply and demand.

If no one is looking at your pics of porn then your demand is gone and you go out of biz.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
I don't know how to "accidentally" look for child pornography. :e2steer:

There is certainly a lot of dark stuff you can inadvertently and unintentionally stumble upon on the Internet, but kiddie porn isn't one of them. You gotta be looking for it.

Seek and ye shall find. Just don't claim the innocent when your hard drive starts filling up.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
Didn't you have to take Economics in high school? It's supply and demand.

If no one is looking at your pics of porn then your demand is gone and you go out of biz.

Right, I'm just not sure the converse--that looking at pics=more production--is always true. It sort of reminds me of the music industry complaining about illegal file sharing. They argue that people accessing their music in this way costs them money, not that it makes more for them. Yet somehow, there are some who just seem to assume that someone looking at porn is always funding it, regardless of circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Karen Junker

Live a little. Write a lot.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
551
Location
Bellevue, WA
Website
www.CascadeWriters.com
I get what you're saying -- not all people who look at porn are paying. But enough of them *are* that the supply is increased to meet the demand.

To be honest, I have no idea about what the percentages are. I do remember reading in an article about a bust that happened around here that there are groups who share files with each other -- I don't know if it's free or for pay or what.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
I don't think that's a good comparison personally - all it takes to put more child porn in the world is a dirtbag with a web cam who doesn't mind exploiting his girlfriend's kids while she's at work because he's convinced there's a market.

It's a pretty different paradigm to the music industry.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
I don't think that's a good comparison personally - all it takes to put more child porn in the world is a dirtbag with a web cam who doesn't mind exploiting his girlfriend's kids while she's at work because he's convinced there's a market.

It's a pretty different paradigm to the music industry.

Sure, it doesn't have to be a perfect comparison, though. I'm just saying I don't think someone who looks at porn is fueling the market, automatically. Do you think that's not true?
 

Hapax Legomenon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
22,289
Reaction score
1,491
There's a lot of things that aren't okay, even if they are legal. I'm making a legal argument as best I can. Not a moral one.

None of it is okay. That's why I pointed out that they may be guilty of other sex crimes. The question I'm referring to is whether it gets the perpetrators jail time under child pornography statutes.

I could very well be misreading the law, but as I read the law, if the sexually explicit activity isn't *depicting* a minor in said act, then it's not child pornography. Not by federal law as I read it. Having a minor engage in that activity brings a whole host of other laws into play. And I'm all for prosecuting those.

And if anyone has an actual citation that counters what I see on the DoJ's Web site, I welcome it.

That's a rather broad reading, but different states also have their own laws concerning child pornography, so he may not be being prosecuted under federal law.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
Sure, it doesn't have to be a perfect comparison, though. I'm just saying I don't think someone who looks at porn is fueling the market, automatically. Do you think that's not true?

At porn in general? No. At barely legal or outright child pornography? Yes.
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
Sure, it doesn't have to be a perfect comparison, though. I'm just saying I don't think someone who looks at porn is fueling the market, automatically. Do you think that's not true?

Just because you're not paying for images or videos doesn't mean the sites hosting those images or videos isn't making money off your clicks.
 

kaitie

With great power comes
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
11,052
Reaction score
2,642
Don't most sites that are free get advertising revenue?
 

Diana Hignutt

Very Tired
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,321
Reaction score
7,113
Location
Albany, NY
Sure, it doesn't have to be a perfect comparison, though. I'm just saying I don't think someone who looks at porn is fueling the market, automatically. Do you think that's not true?

They are putting more children at risk of sexual exploitation. I don't care if they stay in jail forever. There is no margin on this one, if it only fuels the tiniest integral of a fraction of a percent...it's too fucking much. Who knew so many child porn apologists existed? Well, I guess we all know now.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
At porn in general? No. At barely legal or outright child pornography? Yes.

If all we know about someone is that they've looked at child porn, how does it follow that we know they've funded it?

Here, I'll give an example, and you can show me where I've gone wrong. Say you have A, who sends some child porn to his friend B. Say there's no monetary transaction between A and B, even though A might have bought the stuff from someone else. How is it a given that B is funding further production?

Just because you're not paying for images or videos doesn't mean the sites hosting those images or videos isn't making money off your clicks.

I understand. But you don't have to be clicking on a website in order to get busted, correct?
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
A reasoned argument about whether the legal penalties for a given act are appropriate is not the same as being an apologist for the act.
 

Diana Hignutt

Very Tired
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,321
Reaction score
7,113
Location
Albany, NY
Considering they put people in prison for having drawings of minors having sex, I'm pretty sure they could make a case for a real child.

I don't get it, because simply owning or viewing something doesn't hurt anyone.

If you directly funding it, I can understand the argument that the penalties should be harsher, since you're an accessory, but otherwise?

Seriously?

I'm out. I'm quickly losing my ability to RMFW's here...and I'm losing tremendous amounts of respect for people I used to like.

Have fun with your pro-child porn arguments, kids...

I'm sickened.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
If all we know about someone is that they've looked at child porn, how does it follow that we know they've funded it?

Here, I'll give an example, and you can show me where I've gone wrong. Say you have A, who sends some child porn to his friend B. Say there's no monetary transaction between A and B, even though A might have bought the stuff from someone else. How is it a given that B is funding further production?
That site gets traffic, which is how they make their money. IMO it's not even a question of funding, it's a question of encouraging more people to do it.
 

CassandraW

Banned
Flounced
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,476
Location
.
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.

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.

(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.

Celia's reading of the statute is correct. If the person depicted engaging in sexually explicit conduct was a minor, it's child porn, period. It doesn't matter if she's depicted as a junior high student or as a 30-year-old investment banker.

The section gives some examples of child porn (not intended to exclude other forms of it), which would include images that are intended to give the impression that a minor is engaging in a sex act, even if she/he isn't.
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
They are putting more children at risk of sexual exploitation. I don't care if they stay in jail forever. There is no margin on this one, if it only fuels the tiniest integral of a fraction of a percent...it's too fucking much.

How many of us would be in prison if we held everyone to the same standards for child labor, forced labor, and sweat shops? Hint: Pretty much everyone who owns any kind of electronics and buys clothing. So most of us.
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Have fun with your pro-child porn arguments, kids...

No one here has made any arguments in favor of child porn, only arguments concerning the harshness of the legal penalties for viewing and/or owning it, but not making. Nor has anyone suggested viewing or owning it should be decriminalized. It's hard to see how any of that could be interpreted as "pro-child porn".
 
Last edited: