This thread is about Reddit actively trading irrefutable child porn.

SKYNHEDD said:
If its just a bunch of pervs checking out teenagers with clothes on... what law exactly are they breaking here?
Click to expand...

Level 1 of the classification is given as:

Level one: Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity;

And that's for a Jury to decide. If your a young male above the age of consent with a stash of teenage facebook profile pictures pouting at the camera on your hard drive, that is worrying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978

Images which are below the threshold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image or a fashion shoot with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Archy said:
As for the whole Reddit issue, I'm a regular on Reddit and am glad to see them (finally) doing something about the cp/jailbait etc on there, however mild or not it may have been. Thankfully if you just read the frontpage and your subscribed subreddits you would never have come across it, but the fact it was there at all was a problem.
Click to expand...

This is my feelings, I was not aware of any of these sub-reddits until a little time ago.
 
SKYNHEDD said:
This is mental...from what I have been reading, its a bunch of people taking Facebook pics of teenagers and posting them up on reddit..

How can there be anything wrong with that? I was of the understanding that once you posted up pics on Facebook, you a) gave up ownership of those pictures to Facebook, and b) you accepted that you have posted them in a public domain.

If its just a bunch of pervs checking out teenagers with clothes on... what law exactly are they breaking here?

Or is that the problem? People want more oppressive laws for this stuff?
Click to expand...

I am not convinced you are as stupid as you appear. So prove it.
 
Every time i read a negative opinion on here regarding Reddit i always see your username next to the post magnolia, is there some backstory you aren't telling us about your hatred for them?

Reddit has a wonderful community, i find a huge proportion of their users to be friendly, open minded, and positive. Funnily enough, as someone said earlier, there are some distasteful people, like there are on here, and on the internet, and in the real world.
 
BunnyKillBot said:
Level 1 of the classification is given as:

Level one: Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity;

And that's for a Jury to decide. If your a young male above the age of consent with a stash of teenage facebook profile pictures pouting at the camera on your hard drive, that is worrying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978
Click to expand...

Well then facebook and other social networking sites are guilty so is picasa and other sites like that. You have to take some common sense to it at least. Facebook does not allow people to signup younger than 13 i think. From what i know about this jailbail on reddit there was images of girls from 13-18 years of age. To call that child porn is a bit of a stretch. If there was images of realy young girls specically taken to be sexualised then I would call that child porn. I am not defending jailbail on reddit and i don't realy know much about it. I just don't like the attack on reddit as housing child porn. Seems a bit over the top. But as someone who has not looked at all these images I can't say for sure, but from i know it was not child porn.

This is also the first time in the history of the planet that so many images of other people has been available, you could say this sort of thing is unprecedented. Before the internet the only way to get images of this kind would have been magazines and catalogs. Would they classify images from magazines as level 1 ?
 
cheets64 said:
Bet most of the people outraged here laugh at Quagmire scenes of him trying to get with school girls.
Click to expand...

I laugh at Quagmire, I laugh at peadobear I laugh at Jimmy Carr and his innuendoes and odd peado joke... It's just humour, granted it's about a very sad subject but nothing will ever change it will always go on and you either laugh or cry.
 
BunnyKillBot said:
This has been true of all the community sharing underground sites for years. While most maintain an active moderation team that remove the offending material as it is posted, there is often a significant window between the content being posted and the removal, ergo the material has already been effectively shared. The problem is, you cannot screen every post before going live, there are too many, but by purging bad material after its posted, you are still creating a window of facilitation to the distribution of said material.

And the sad thing is, it desensitizes the active community to the material and reduces the shocking impact of it. The whole pedobear or partyvan memes, which are a big joke, makes light of something that is utterly shocking, disgraceful and unacceptable. Combine this 'big joke' attitude with a community of young and influential members, and you have a breeding ground for the sexualization of children.

This is not a good thing, and anybody saying its a non-issue needs to get their head examined.

:(
Click to expand...
Very much this.

When these topics arise, I'm always struck by the apparent apathy to the actual issue. If you are seeking titillation or arousal by looking at young girls or children (clothed or not), THIS IS NOT OK. People who fall into this group need to seek professional help

SKYNHEDD said:
This is mental...from what I have been reading, its a bunch of people taking Facebook pics of teenagers and posting them up on reddit..

How can there be anything wrong with that? I was of the understanding that once you posted up pics on Facebook, you a) gave up ownership of those pictures to Facebook, and b) you accepted that you have posted them in a public domain.

If its just a bunch of pervs checking out teenagers with clothes on... what law exactly are they breaking here?

Or is that the problem? People want more oppressive laws for this stuff?
Click to expand...

BunnyKillBot said:
Level 1 of the classification is given as:

Level one: Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity;

And that's for a Jury to decide. If your a young male above the age of consent with a stash of teenage facebook profile pictures pouting at the camera on your hard drive, that is worrying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978
Click to expand...
Exactly, the issue here is the intent. Clearly, far too abundantly, the intent is sexual.

There is not (or shouldn't be) a grey area here.

Someone could possess pictures or videos of children that are completely innocent, but as soon as someone collects these media for the purposes outlined above it becomes not ok.

In fact, I would love to hear anyone justify collecting or seeking out any media containing children/young girls.
 
SKYNHEDD said:
This is ridiculous.

What about a clothing designer who designs and markets clothes for children?

They would have millions of pictures.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
Obviously, that's innocent.

I didn't say there weren't any examples that were innocent. I also didn't say that if you view this material you are automatically a paedophile. You are viewing my argument through some strange blinkers.

Using your questionable style of argument, are you suggesting that everyone who seeks out or collects such pictures and videos is a clothing designer?
 
icecold said:
:rolleyes:
Obviously, that's innocent.

I didn't say there weren't any examples that were innocent. I also didn't say that if you view this material you are automatically a paedophile. You are viewing my argument through some strange blinkers.

Using your questionable style of argument, are you suggesting that everyone who seeks out or collects such pictures and videos is a clothing designer?
Click to expand...

Your argument is mental.

How are you going do distinguish between people who are "innocent" and those are gaining gratification?

What do you want? Sensors inside someones head to alert the police if someone finds a particular image "sexual" to them?

What if someone found Oak Trees sexually attractive? What are you going to do? Ban pictures of trees?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom