Associate
reddit, the only place you can find a sub forum called picturesofdeadjailbait or somthing.
This thread is about Reddit actively trading irrefutable child porn.
- Thread starter [FnG]magnolia
- Start date
Soldato
What you've done here is make a sensationalist claim to the negative, made up the justification, and then verified you made it up immediately.
Great job!
If we can compare this to rape for a second, I don't not rape people because of the consequences of going to jail, I don't rape people because someone will be hurt by me doing so. But let's also say I watch (legal/illegal) rape porn. Am I more or less likely to actually rape someone? I guess you assume more likely, so I guess you think locking hypothetical me away for a bit would prevent rape?
Associate
How many people were arrested and charged with distribution of CP relating to the actions of SA against Reddit ?.
According to the SA thread linked in the first post here, "This thread is about Reddit actively trading irrefutable child porn" (re-emphasis my own). Apart from the fact that it would appear to be people using Reddit and not Reddit the website or its owners are posting this stuff, if it is irrefutable then surely there is proof available for the legal authorities to make use of, arrest and imprison the offenders. Later in the thread there is mention of a Reddit sub forum where someone is collecting the proof (storing CP ??). I have not read through all 146 pages of the SA thread so this question may be answered there.
I am with DM on the preference in seeing the distributors arrested and hopefully some links to creators/abusers can be uncovered so the chain can be stopped rather than just pushing it somewhere else. The tricky part would be to restrict distribution in such a way so as not to tip off the distributors while the case is being built up and the subjects are being monitored. All this without someone coming in and inciting international outcry and getting it all closed down and the leads running for cover whilst thinking they are doing the best thing.
RB
According to the SA thread linked in the first post here, "This thread is about Reddit actively trading irrefutable child porn" (re-emphasis my own). Apart from the fact that it would appear to be people using Reddit and not Reddit the website or its owners are posting this stuff, if it is irrefutable then surely there is proof available for the legal authorities to make use of, arrest and imprison the offenders. Later in the thread there is mention of a Reddit sub forum where someone is collecting the proof (storing CP ??). I have not read through all 146 pages of the SA thread so this question may be answered there.
I am with DM on the preference in seeing the distributors arrested and hopefully some links to creators/abusers can be uncovered so the chain can be stopped rather than just pushing it somewhere else. The tricky part would be to restrict distribution in such a way so as not to tip off the distributors while the case is being built up and the subjects are being monitored. All this without someone coming in and inciting international outcry and getting it all closed down and the leads running for cover whilst thinking they are doing the best thing.
RB
Associate
Sorry Steve, not sure what you are getting at.
If there were pictures of under age girls (or boys although this may be more difficult) wearing clothes with a skirt pulled up and their hand positioned to give the impression they were masturbating through their underwear then yes, it would be classed as CP based on my reading of those definitions. If the girls were not under age then yep it seems would be normal porn. Definitions obviously differ from country to country.
RB
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 6,056
Actually, he's telling the truth; the "picturesofdeadjailbait" subreddit did exist.
RimBlock: I think he's talking about the COPINE scale of grading child porn. Grade 1 is loose enough that it can pretty much include any photo of a child, if that photo has been used as a masturbation aid. You wouldn't get prosecuted for having photos of your own kids, or for putting them on Facebook (which is where a lot of this stuff comes from), but if you have 5000 photos of clothed kids on your hard drive? Yeah, your interest probably goes beyond the lighting.
Associate
I would hate to think how that would be ascertained unless the person were 'caught in the act', so to say. I do understand the point though.
Hopefully you would not get prosecuted for pics of family members or friends if there was obviously no sexual motive behind them. I do agree that 5000 pictures of clothed kids with no real connection to the person would be very weird. The pictures would, surely, not change status to CP just because someone has lots of them. Maybe they could be used as evidence for illicit use for sexual gratification or something similar.
I was shocked to find the age of consent in Spain is 13.... it was not so much of a shock that it was also 13 in Japan (prefectures can raise this age individually). China is 14. These all are only valid if no deceit was used by an adult. Lists of ages here. These are also the legal age and not necessary the culturally accepted age.
RB
The similarity being they said they would never allow such a thing to happen whether the person deserves it or not
.Was ********.
BEEP BOOP I AM AN ASPERGERS ROBOT, IF SOMETHING IS NOT ILLEGAL THEN WHAT IS THE HARM, CONTINUE TO POST CHILD MODELLING PICTURES THAT DO NOT BREAK USA SPECIFIC CHILD PORN LAWS, COMMENT ON THEM, AND DISCUSS TRADING OTHER PICTURES YOU HAVE THAT CANNOT BE PUBLICLY POSTED, NOTHING WRONG HERE, PROTECT REDDITS FREEDOM OF SPEECH FROM THE EVILS OF CENSORSHIP, RON PAUL 2012.
I'd like to think this scale is the "sensible" scale:
-===- ILLEGAL:
pre-pubescent children (not old enough to understand) with no clothes
-===- Unacceptable for 90% of us (but not outright illegal):
pre-pubescent children dressed for sex (not nude, but suggestive)
-===- Pervy but not deserving of jail time
Nude 16/17 year olds
-===- Who honestly cares (SA do, apparently):
16/17 year olds in bikinis.
-===- Legal
anything 18+ (and not German!)
I'm not sure if that makes me a bad person by some people's definitions, but I mostly only think pre-pubescent images should be really cracked down on. There are some sickos out there - real sickos - and we shouldn't forget that horrific crimes are committed against children.
That's why we shouldn't dilute our feelings towards real child abuse by including older teens in bikinis on a beach in our definitions of C.P.
-===- ILLEGAL:
pre-pubescent children (not old enough to understand) with no clothes
-===- Unacceptable for 90% of us (but not outright illegal):
pre-pubescent children dressed for sex (not nude, but suggestive)
-===- Pervy but not deserving of jail time
Nude 16/17 year olds
-===- Who honestly cares (SA do, apparently):
16/17 year olds in bikinis.
-===- Legal
anything 18+ (and not German!)
I'm not sure if that makes me a bad person by some people's definitions, but I mostly only think pre-pubescent images should be really cracked down on. There are some sickos out there - real sickos - and we shouldn't forget that horrific crimes are committed against children.
That's why we shouldn't dilute our feelings towards real child abuse by including older teens in bikinis on a beach in our definitions of C.P.
People keep thinking jailbait = CP. It's weird and morally objectionable in some aspects but the infringement of free speech going further than the law does is a bigger loss to me.
Child pornography has never been, and will never be, allowed on reddit.
Child pornography has never been, and will never be, allowed on reddit.
Are you going to cry? Knock those chips off your shoulder. Aspergers? Censorship? Ron Paul? You're sounding quite irrational
Last edited:
Where *is* the harm in jailbait pics? Do tell.
Soldato
How did you stumble across this peado stuff magnolia? What were searching for? 
Soldato
Permabanned
It's Paedogeddon!
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 6,056
Wrong. Only as a result of Pedogeddon 2 did Reddit explicitly prohibit sexual content featuring minors in their rules - and even then they said it was a decision they "did not make lightly and without careful deliberation", because they support freedom of speech and expression. Would you care to explain how the question "Should we ban our members from posting pictures of children in sexual poses?" needs any kind of deliberation before answering "No"?
Last edited: