Aussie sentenced to 3 years jail for trolling

Energize said:
I didn't say child pornography should be legal, there is a huge difference between looking at it and making it.
Click to expand...

Supply & demand.
It could be argued that the lookers are worse than the makers.
I am shocked that you said you don't think it should be illegal to look at child porn.
 
dmpoole said:
Supply & demand.
It could be argued that the lookers are worse than the makers.
I am shocked that you said you don't think it should be illegal to look at child porn.
Click to expand...
In general we do not, and ought not to, punish people demanding things for the harm caused by those supplying them, regardless of whether demand drives supply or not.

We do not, for example, hold the 113m viewers of Rebecca Black's 'Friday' video accountable for the harm it has caused to the fabric of society.
 
Last edited:
dmpoole said:
It could be argued that the lookers are worse than the makers.
Click to expand...

ok I'm not sure why i'm asking this but why is someone looking at child porn worse than a person physically molesting child and taking pictures/film of themselves doing it?

cartoon cp though i dunno i can't see why that should the life sentence of being declared a paedophile and sent to prison/dragged though the papers and marked for life over it.
 
Tefal said:
arguably though a lot of it is made because the abuser making it wants to record it for their own use, sharing/trading it is secondary.
Click to expand...

I think we'd need to see some evidence for it either way. I don't know. I do recall that in the recent child abuse scandal at that nursery (Little Teds?) it was the chap behind the scenes instructing the women at the nursery on what to do, so that's at least one case of demand leading supply, if a bit tenuous.
 
vonhelmet said:
I think we'd need to see some evidence for it either way. I don't know. I do recall that in the recent child abuse scandal at that nursery (Little Teds?) it was the chap behind the scenes instructing the women at the nursery on what to do, so that's at least one case of demand leading supply, if a bit tenuous.
Click to expand...
Granted, but you are proposing a consequentialist 'end justifies the means' approach to legislation. We ought to prohibit the viewing of images of child pornography not because those actions are malum in se — if they are indeed immoral at all — but because they lead to actions of others that are.

That just doesn't hold water. Do we start criminalising and locking up readers of the News of the World for the harm caused by their employees in the phone hacking scandal? After all, demand leads supply, right?
 
vonhelmet said:
Supply and demand.
Click to expand...

There is not enough evidence of that for it to be "obviously illegal" to me. Normal couples produce pornographic videos of themselves for their own use, so demand may not have any significant effect on illegal content. And mere possession does not necessarily result in any visible demand either, it depends how the images are acquired.
 
I have lots of things to say, but my brain is too tierd :p

Good discussion - I'll add more tomorrow, bit I'll give some food for thought:

A man is defamed by the media and his life wrecked. The harm caused is unquantifiable - think about the poor landlord in the Joanna Yates case.

A man's wallet is stolen. He loses some cash (£200) and suffers some mild inconvenience in replacing his cards. The theif has stolen several wallets.

Why is it obvious that such theft should face a criminal sanction when the harm is relatively low, when the harm in the former incident is much greater yet it is not a criminal offence?
 
Tefal said:
libel?


often ends in massive settlements doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It can do, but that doesn't explain why one is criminal and the other isn't if harm is to the be the sole indicator of criminality.

It's a pretty challenging question really, I have my own ideas but I'd be interested in seeing what others think.
 
I imagine it might be to do with cost and ability to get your claim to court.

Also would criminal cases require the fine to be paid to the government rather than the victim?


I.E a civil case of libel/slander etc ha s a cost to the accuser to help deter frivolous cases, but that doesn't exist in the criminal version I'd imagine.

also with a criminal version wouldn't the decision to go forward be with the c.p.s rather than a judge so people may feel their case is unfairly dismissed?

Don't know enough about the differences in getting a civil case and criminal case to court tbh.
 
That's quite a long sentence and social stigma to came about because he drew some willies on some young person's face. It's certainly distasteful to say the least but is the man a paedophile? It's hard to say without seeing the pictures but I imagine it was pretty crude and hardly fap material.

bhavv said:
Well, what if it is consensual?
Click to expand...

Young people generally aren't knowledgeable (for lack of a better word) therefore they're not in a position to make informed decisions. It's as simple as that and the same reason one can't buy cigarettes until the age of eighteen. Using age to gauge one's ability to make an informed decision is certainly questionable but what other option is there?
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
I have lots of things to say, but my brain is too tierd :p

Good discussion - I'll add more tomorrow, bit I'll give some food for thought:

A man is defamed by the media and his life wrecked. The harm caused is unquantifiable - think about the poor landlord in the Joanna Yates case.

A man's wallet is stolen. He loses some cash (£200) and suffers some mild inconvenience in replacing his cards. The theif has stolen several wallets.

Why is it obvious that such theft should face a criminal sanction when the harm is relatively low, when the harm in the former incident is much greater yet it is not a criminal offence?
Click to expand...

In the theft case it is obvious it should be criminal because there is a clear and identifiable significant harm. I would personally make such defamation a criminal offence, I do not believe it is difficult to see the damage done to someone from defamation.
 
sniffy said:
Young people generally aren't knowledgeable therefore they're not in a position to make informed decisions. It's as simple as that and the same reason one can't buy cigarettes until the age of eighteen. Using age to gauge one's ability to make an informed decision is certainly questionable but what other option is there?
Click to expand...

two 16 years olds in a long term relationship are having sex, this is legal.


one day the GF decides to send her bf a sexy nude pic on his phone, the boyfriend is now guilty of possessing child pornography and the girl of producing and distributing child pornography.
 
Tefal said:
scenario
Click to expand...

Well that's obviously retarded and there should be exemptions within the law to handle cases like that.

Playing devil's advocate...I would imagine a lot of fap material for paedophiles is stuff taken from boyfriend's phones. Perhaps there does need to be something within the law to reduce this source that paedophiles use? Maybe not a "omg you rape kids" type conviction but something.
 
Last edited:
sniffy said:
Well that's obviously retarded and there should be exemptions within the law to handle cases like that.
Click to expand...


what sort of exemptions and how do you make them safe from abuse?

raise the age of consent or lower the age you can make porn?
 
I don't know and I'm not going to pretend to know. It's a very grey area. Clearly two consenting sixteen years old sharing pictures is harmless (although back to devil's advocate this stuff undoubtedly turns up in the possession of dirty-minded adults) but expressing that in law, I would imagine, is incredibly difficult.
 
Tefal said:
what sort of exemptions and how do you make them safe from abuse?

raise the age of consent or lower the age you can make porn?
Click to expand...

The most obvious one would be exempt people from crimes against themselves, it's like arresting someone for attempted murder for trying to commit suicide otherwise. The boyfriend would not have committed a crime for just receiving it unsolicited. Possibly make an exemption for people in relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom