THIS IS OFFICIAL. NOT SPECULATION. HE HAS BEEN CHARGED ON TWO COUNTS. HE'S BEEN SENTENCED. Short story, the gist if you will, feel free to look into this as much or little as you want, but this type of thing should be known in the community: Last year Bill Borgida was crossing the border,…
Originally posted Monday, February 8, 2010 (2 years ago)
Yes, that would be you. Knowing that you haven't sorted though your porn and there might be some underage porn in there somewhere is completely different than knowing that there is underage porn on your computer.
Originally posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 (2 years ago)
I don’t normally post on the boards, but I had to say something after reading some of these responses. Child porn is pretty clear showing that it is children, not very young-looking women. That is the appeal. Yes, many adult porn sites show young women who look like teenagers, and some women who are apparently 18 or over could pass for several years younger. But that is not the same thing as someone who looks like a 10-year-old or a 7-year-old. It is rare to find a child porn image of a minor who has gone through puberty,and offenders with those images usually do not get prosecuted.
The appeal of child porn is that the bodies look like children, not adults. It's not an accident that someone ends up with child porn on their computer. The body of an adult woman, or even an adolescent woman, looks quite a bit different than the body of a young girl. In terms of the issue of not knowing how old people in porn are, it’s easy to see which images are of children and not young women. You don't have to be a law enforcement official to see the difference right away.
Child porn possession is a serious offense because children cannot give consent. People who are drawn to it are into control and power issues. This is not the same thing as BDSM in adults; that is consensual. Children in porn are being exploited in every sense of the word. Buying porn images of children feeds the industry and continues the abuse. Think about children you know. This is not an abstract thing. The damage it does to children is enormous. It's not just pictures on someone's computer; these are real children. In fact, the term "child abuse images" are being used more and more to replace the word " child porn".
A recent study in the US of men convicted of having child porn on their computers found that 90% of the children were prepubescent, and 80% of the images graphically depicted penetration of the child.
This is not an innocent sexual interest. There is a strong link between people who view child porn and people who act on those impulses. Not everyone, but pretty often. And it can develop over time, in an obsessive way. I’m not saying Bill Borgida did that. But I am saying there are good reasons to take this very seriously and not brush this off as someone's quirk. This is a pathology that can rarely be "rehabilitated", and certainly jail time without therapy will do little to change these impulses. Even with treatment, it can take years, relapses are common, and compliance is very low.
I have worked with sex offenders (and legally, he is a sex offender); I have a doctorate in psychology and two decades of experience here. Men who are drawn to child porn (and again, we're not talking about men who come across pictures of girls in their late teens who could pass as early teens) are dealing with pretty serious issues, and they can be good at hiding them (to themselves as well). Rehab needs to be intensive, both in group and individual format, and ongoing. But as the joke goes, the light bulb has to want to be changed. Being caught does not make most people want to change. There is gratification that comes from acting on impulses, even if that 'action' is downloading images. The draw does not magically go away by being in jail.
Quote A recent study in the US of men convicted of having child porn on their computers found that 90% of the children were prepubescent, and 80% of the images graphically depicted penetration of the child.
Interesting statistics, in light of the fact less then %1 of the pornographic images found in Bill's case were prepubescent (%0.01 if you include all images found). Even if we include all under 18 images, we're still only up to about %10, a far cry from %90.
Your factoids would appear to solidly support Wexie's argument that the facts of the case do not fit the profile, yes?
Originally posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 (2 years ago)
It appears he was intentionally downloading "teenager porn" and ended up with some accidental "child porn". However, the law in this country does not distinguish between the two. Teenager porn is child porn.
Legally, you are correct. That's why Bill's lawyer was able to convince him to take the plea agreement.
But in terms of behavior, is it clear whether his intention when downloading "teenager porn" was to:
download images of 18 and 19 year olds (legal)?
download images without knowing whether the teenagers in question were of legal age or not (which could be how he got into at least some of his legal trouble because it appears the FBI has an image database of known underage teenagers whose photos are out there on the web)?
or
primarily look for and download images of teenagers under the age of 18 (illegal - which would be a deliberate, not accidental violation of the law even if no images of pre-pubescent children were found)?
The issue here is not whether or not Bill is "guilty" (that's been settled). Only whether his criminal action was intentional. The third possibility listed above would indicate a person intentionally and deliberately breaking the law, and in my mind would be more morally culpable than a person who never intended to download/view pictures of minors.
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
The context of the prior posts were about psychology and the differences between pre-pubescent porn and post. Everyone knows legally ad nauseum what that both are equivalently illegal.
What is your motivation in rehashing the legality?
My motivation in "rehashing the legality" is this sentence. Teenager porn is child porn.
The distinction between child porn and teenager porn is artificial. It doesn't exist legally. For many people, it doesn't exist morally, either.
Maybe you draw a moral distinction between teenagers and children. Ok, that's fine - there's WRONG, and then there's somewhat less wrong. But the law, as the embodiment of society's wishes, does not draw that distinction.
That's the thing - the child pornography law we have now was a direct response by Congress to telephone calls from their constituents, who were outraged when the Supreme Court struck down the previous law as overbroad.
Society called for this law. I read the congressional record. The people asked for the toughest law that the Supreme Court would accept. They wanted Congress to tiptoe right up to that line. And they wanted the new law passed as soon as possible.
I've been discussing this thread with my colleagues over the past few weeks. They're shocked that anyone is complaining about the punishment. To quote my coworker, "I'm with society on this one."
Originally posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 (2 years ago)
Quoted from "zeno" The context of the prior posts were about psychology and the differences between pre-pubescent porn and post. Everyone knows legally ad nauseum what that both are equivalently illegal.
Quoted from "redshoes" The distinction between child porn and teenager porn is artificial. It doesn't exist legally. For many people, it doesn't exist morally, either.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that psychology is a pseudoscience or otherwise "artificial"?
Originally posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 (2 years ago)
No, I think psychology is real.
But our society draws a line of adulthood at 18. And then another one at 21. Under 18, you are a minor. Over 18, you are an adult.
Is it an artificial line? Yes. But it's the line we have. We're comfortable with it. No one is protesting that it should be moved to 17 or 19.
Yes, the pathology of this wrongdoing is different if one seeks out teenagers vs. prepubescents. But they're all children.
Folieadeux had a good point a few pages back. If what you're looking for is 18 year olds who look younger, that's easy to find. Why would you take the risk unless you want to look at people who are younger?
One point is that even if Bill had downloaded 300 images of 16-17 year old girls with no images of much younger children, it wouldn't do a thing to change his guilt in the eyes of the law, ergo he would still be going to prison.
From what we have read, it looks like Bill Borgida collected, in his own words, "solo teen erotica".
I put quotation marks around "teenager porn" vs. "child porn" because they are both child porn. Neither involves an adult. Sure, some of the children may be physically capable of reproduction. So what? So are some rare 7 year olds. Puberty should not be the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable.
Yes, we get it already redshoes: For you "letter of the law" = "morality". Except when you really disagree with the law, and then it doesn't, or some random bull[bleep!] like that. To be honest it's really not all that clear.
Here's a shocker: I see no moral difference whatso[bleep!]ingever between someone aged 17 years, 364 days and someone aged 18 years. I really don't give a flying [bleep!] what society has written down on the subject, it's not going to change my moral opinion on the matter one iota.
I do not live by simpleton black and white judgments. I do not allow mob rule to decide for me what is right and what is wrong. For me it the debate does not end as soon as someone simply crosses some arbitrary line in the sand. Specifics and circumstances matter a whole hell of a lot to me. And I'm not at all alone in feeling this way.
I get that they don't to you, Marcelo, and others of your ilk. I'm pretty sure we all get that. Chanting your same simplistic ethical code over and over won't give it any more weight.
Bill broke the law, he's going to jail for it, for a long time. Not a single person here questions any of that. Would you please stop arguing a point that was won by default on page 1.
Quote But our society draws a line of adulthood at 18. And then another one at 21. Under 18, you are a minor. Over 18, you are an adult.
Not all the time on this issue, it doesn't, which you know because different states have different age of consent/statutory rape laws with different treatment of different age ranges, etc.
You can't make a categorical statement like that, because society's treatment of the issue (defining statutory treatment as societal treatment) isn't monolithic or uniform.
Quote No one is protesting that it should be moved to 17 or 19.
Not yet. Wait for some asshole AUSA to bust a kid because his cellphone has images from his 17 year, 300 day old girlfriend on it. Doesn't matter if the kid's under 18 either, remember?
Please quit treating this like there's obviously one normative answer. There isn't.
Quote Is there any reason that the illegal images should be necessary?
I wasn't aware that something had to be necessary to avoid being declared illegal. And you're talking far broader than just Bill's factual situation now, but allowing for no distinctions for relevant/significant factual differences.
Originally posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 (2 years ago)
The Britney photo also illustrates the point that there are plenty of legal sexy images of underaged girls. There are plenty of legal images of sexy 18 year olds who look underaged lasciviously displaying their genitals. Is there any reason that the illegal images should be necessary?
I'm talking about 18 as the age of majority, you know, you can vote, you can sign contracts, etc. Yes, romeo & juliet laws exist. I have no problem with them. I like romeo & juliet laws. I even think that this law could and should have more flexibility built into it. I absolutely believe that there is a place in the law for both justice and mercy.
I am primarily responding to this specific situation, not every possible permutation and consequence of this law. I would absolutely have more sympathy for the 18 year old sexting with the 17 year old.
But this specific situation is not a close case. We both know that.
Quoted from redshoes From what we have read, it looks like Bill Borgida collected, in his own words, "solo teen erotica".
I put quotation marks around "teenager porn" vs. "child porn" because they are both child porn.Neither involves an adult.
For someone that claims to have studied the subject in depth, you sure are ignorant of the basics. Maybe this will help:
Eighteen
Nineteen
Or maybe this: "teen porn" - Google - Results 1 - 10 of about 18,800,000 for teen porn.
"Teen" is by far the largest legal sub-category in the porn industry.
Redshoes, you are making a completely unwarranted logical leap by assuming when Bill uses a very standard industry marketing term that unquestionably means "legal 18-19 year olds", to mean something completely and totally not that. This isn't unusual language usage, this is the bog standard vernacular.
To claim Bill really meant something completely different then the standard vernacular usage is so wrong it's bordering on libel.
Originally posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 (2 years ago)
Quoted from Bill's open letter to the dance community “Child pornography” is a hot-button term that covers a very wide legal spectrum of images. It includes everything from “kiddie porn” - very young children engaged in sexual acts with adults as well as “teen erotica” - older teenage girls posing by themselves. I can assure you I never had any interest in or curiosity for “kiddie porn.” I find it repulsive and very disturbing. Whenever I came across a file of this type, I immediately put it into the trash bin. The results of the forensic investigation support that I was not targeting images of younger children. My pornography collection consisted of mostly adult pornography with less than 10% falling into the "teen erotica" (solo older teen) category.
Bill himself used the term "teen erotica" to describe the 300 images (less than 10%) of illegal child pornography found on his computer. I think it's pretty clear that he did not mean "legal adult erotica" by the term.
To be perfectly clear in Bill's own words, "Child pornography . . .includes "teen erotica" - older teenage girls posing by themselves."
He used this term to describe his specific preferred facet of child pornography, not the legal images. I wasn't assuming or claiming anything.
Actually, that is not correct. Only in the legal definition does the term child pornography include minors. In common usage and for research purposes, child pornography refers to images of prepubescent children, and does not include post-pubertal teenage minors. Although the legal definition is valid when speaking of legalities in the United States, it is pretty useless after that. Every other discipline ( psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc ) does make that distinction. Yet, because of the extreme reactionary nature of this conversation, to do so, is some how condoning or mitigating Bill's behavior.
Also, you keep speaking about the fact that he broke the law and this is the law, blah, blah. We get that. We got that on page 1. Can we move on from that?
The question is how rational are our laws and how effective are our laws. When we are discussing health care, we look at how other civilized industrialized nations handle their health care.
Let's look at the fact that they separate the two in London. Moreover, even within the scope of prepubescent porn, they have the leveled topology I quoted earlier. That topology is designed to understand the spectrum of behavior, and it is used to measure the likely danger to society someone poses, and therefore, they use it in sentencing guidelines. Forgive me, but this just seems smarter and more efficacious to me. In no way do I think sentencing Bill ( and people like Bill ) to five years in prison is the best way to use our resources to address this very serious problem, nor does it help achieve the desired outcome.
Quote The Britney photo also illustrates the point that there are plenty of legal sexy images of underaged girls. There are plenty of legal images of sexy 18 year olds who look underaged lasciviously displaying their genitals. Is there any reason that the illegal images should be necessary?
You either completely missed my point or chose to ignore it.. People here have been quite emphatic about the fact that society deems any sexualization of a minor down right wrong, no question, no comments, no mitigating qualifications. Yet society also obviously thinks it is okay to deliberately sexualize a teenager; this is made clear in the fact that a legendary magazine, run by adults, for adults, put a 16 year old girl on the cover of their magazine. The photo is deliberately designed and presented so that adult males will sexualize this young girl, promoting the sexualization of minors. To give credit where credit is due, Marcelo is the only one who touched on this issue earlier in the thread.
There is more to this conversation than "He broke the law. He broke the law. He broke the law."
You and others are on the board on one hand take a complete black and white look at all this, and make complete absolutist statements. The undertone is like Bill is either a serial killer pedophile, or innocent, and since he was found with child pornography he is the latter. End of story. ( Obviously I am being facetious with the serial killer pedophile wording, it was to make the point. Unfortunately, with the tone of this thread, even the obvious has to be spelled out clearly. ) Any attempt to discuss this on a more nuanced and accurate level, has been met with indignation and hostility. Again, every academic discipline does look at this on a more nuanced level. Questions that are asked and explored every day about these related issues in all sorts of academic and professional circles, is treated with ridicule and scorn.
People are upset. I get that. They have a right to be. But that does not set the stage for the most productive discussion.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (2 years ago)
Redshoes still hasn't addressed some of our previous questions.
She says breaking the law is immoral, except when the law is immoral. She's trapped in a tautology and her only retort is, "What do you care about my personal moral system?"
She's coming back and repeating herself like a broken tape recorder without understanding that it adds nothing to the discussion.
From what I can gather, she interjected in the discussion of psychopathology of child vs. teen pornography to say that both are pathologies, because it involves breaking the law. She has no further backing other than to go back to her previous tautology.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (2 years ago)
I said that I believe that it is immoral for me to break the law. Racetrack also said that it is wrong to break the law. But I'm not on trial here.
What are you adding to the discussion by calling me a "broken tape recorder?"
Some people, myself included, believe that teenagers are not adults and should not be treated as such.
I'm not the one saying any sexualization of minors is bad. Do I think it's a bad trend? Yes. But I didn't bring it up here.
I didn't miss your point, Wexie. I chose to use your image to illustrate that there are sexy pictures of out there of minors which do not qualify as pornography. There are so many legal alternatives to illegal pornography that I don't understand how having it can possibly be justified.
Why should it be justified? Because it's not as bad as pre-pubescent pornography? Is there any good reason to view or collect these images?
Maybe it's "not that bad." But it certainly ain't good.
You are not on trial but it is naive to think your inane comments in a public setting deserves no scrutiny. You have willfully put your words out there, expect them to be criticized especially if they are illogical and have no merit.
Polygraphs are unreliable in that there are certain people who can beat them. Very, very, very, few people are capable of beating a polygraph test. When the polygraph is wrong, it is more likely to find someone being dishonest when they are truthful, than the other way around.
Because of this, polygraphs are not admissible in court ( Though attorneys will always let it slip that someone passed or failed a polygraph in court; the opposing counsel will object but the jury and/or judge will hear the fact. )
This is why law enforcement still routinely uses polygraph tests. If it shows the person is telling the truth, they usually work on the assumption that the person is innocent, unless there is some really compelling reason not to. If it shows they are guilty, they use that to establish they want to continue their investigation to collect as much evidence as they can, and also use that as psychological leverage when interrogating the subject.
Quote I'm not the one saying any sexualization of minors is bad. Do I think it's a bad trend? Yes. But I didn't bring it up here.
Point taken.
Quote I didn't miss your point, Wexie. I chose to use your image to illustrate that there are sexy pictures of out there of minors which do not qualify as pornography. There are so many legal alternatives to illegal pornography that I don't understand how having it can possibly be justified.
Why should it be justified? Because it's not as bad as pre-pubescent pornography? Is there any good reason to view or collect these images?
Maybe it's "not that bad." But it certainly ain't good.
No one is saying possession of minor pornography is okay. There is no reason to have it. It should be illegal. The question is how society chooses to combat it, how deviant is the behavior, and what is the most educated and rational assessment of how dangerous a collector of it is to society.
Bill Borgida: Two Counts: Child Porn.
THIS IS OFFICIAL. NOT SPECULATION. HE HAS BEEN CHARGED ON TWO COUNTS. HE'S BEEN SENTENCED. Short story, the gist if you will, feel free to look into this as much or little as you want, but this type of thing should be known in the community: Last year Bill Borgida was crossing the border,…
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next > (1048 items total)
Yes, that would be you. Knowing that you haven't sorted though your porn and there might be some underage porn in there somewhere is completely different than knowing that there is underage porn on your computer.
I don’t normally post on the boards, but I had to say something after reading some of these responses. Child porn is pretty clear showing that it is children, not very young-looking women. That is the appeal. Yes, many adult porn sites show young women who look like teenagers, and some women who are apparently 18 or over could pass for several years younger. But that is not the same thing as someone who looks like a 10-year-old or a 7-year-old. It is rare to find a child porn image of a minor who has gone through puberty, and offenders with those images usually do not get prosecuted.
The appeal of child porn is that the bodies look like children, not adults. It's not an accident that someone ends up with child porn on their computer. The body of an adult woman, or even an adolescent woman, looks quite a bit different than the body of a young girl. In terms of the issue of not knowing how old people in porn are, it’s easy to see which images are of children and not young women. You don't have to be a law enforcement official to see the difference right away.
Child porn possession is a serious offense because children cannot give consent. People who are drawn to it are into control and power issues. This is not the same thing as BDSM in adults; that is consensual. Children in porn are being exploited in every sense of the word. Buying porn images of children feeds the industry and continues the abuse. Think about children you know. This is not an abstract thing. The damage it does to children is enormous. It's not just pictures on someone's computer; these are real children. In fact, the term "child abuse images" are being used more and more to replace the word " child porn".
A recent study in the US of men convicted of having child porn on their computers found that 90% of the children were prepubescent, and 80% of the images graphically depicted penetration of the child.
This is not an innocent sexual interest. There is a strong link between people who view child porn and people who act on those impulses. Not everyone, but pretty often. And it can develop over time, in an obsessive way. I’m not saying Bill Borgida did that. But I am saying there are good reasons to take this very seriously and not brush this off as someone's quirk. This is a pathology that can rarely be "rehabilitated", and certainly jail time without therapy will do little to change these impulses. Even with treatment, it can take years, relapses are common, and compliance is very low.
I have worked with sex offenders (and legally, he is a sex offender); I have a doctorate in psychology and two decades of experience here. Men who are drawn to child porn (and again, we're not talking about men who come across pictures of girls in their late teens who could pass as early teens) are dealing with pretty serious issues, and they can be good at hiding them (to themselves as well). Rehab needs to be intensive, both in group and individual format, and ongoing. But as the joke goes, the light bulb has to want to be changed. Being caught does not make most people want to change. There is gratification that comes from acting on impulses, even if that 'action' is downloading images. The draw does not magically go away by being in jail.
Interesting statistics, in light of the fact less then %1 of the pornographic images found in Bill's case were prepubescent (%0.01 if you include all images found). Even if we include all under 18 images, we're still only up to about %10, a far cry from %90.
Your factoids would appear to solidly support Wexie's argument that the facts of the case do not fit the profile, yes?
Yes, that was my argument and it does support Bill's contention that he was not deliberately downloading child porn.
It appears he was intentionally downloading "teenager porn" and ended up with some accidental "child porn". However, the law in this country does not distinguish between the two. Teenager porn is child porn.
...because teenagers are children.
Reuben Brown - www.JiveJunction.com - Southern California
Legally, you are correct. That's why Bill's lawyer was able to convince him to take the plea agreement.
But in terms of behavior, is it clear whether his intention when downloading "teenager porn" was to:
download images of 18 and 19 year olds (legal)?
download images without knowing whether the teenagers in question were of legal age or not (which could be how he got into at least some of his legal trouble because it appears the FBI has an image database of known underage teenagers whose photos are out there on the web)?
or
The issue here is not whether or not Bill is "guilty" (that's been settled). Only whether his criminal action was intentional. The third possibility listed above would indicate a person intentionally and deliberately breaking the law, and in my mind would be more morally culpable than a person who never intended to download/view pictures of minors.
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
The context of the prior posts were about psychology and the differences between pre-pubescent porn and post. Everyone knows legally ad nauseum what that both are equivalently illegal.
What is your motivation in rehashing the legality?
My motivation in "rehashing the legality" is this sentence. Teenager porn is child porn.
The distinction between child porn and teenager porn is artificial. It doesn't exist legally. For many people, it doesn't exist morally, either.
Maybe you draw a moral distinction between teenagers and children. Ok, that's fine - there's WRONG, and then there's somewhat less wrong. But the law, as the embodiment of society's wishes, does not draw that distinction.
That's the thing - the child pornography law we have now was a direct response by Congress to telephone calls from their constituents, who were outraged when the Supreme Court struck down the previous law as overbroad.
Society called for this law. I read the congressional record. The people asked for the toughest law that the Supreme Court would accept. They wanted Congress to tiptoe right up to that line. And they wanted the new law passed as soon as possible.
I've been discussing this thread with my colleagues over the past few weeks. They're shocked that anyone is complaining about the punishment. To quote my coworker, "I'm with society on this one."
Out of curiosity, do you believe that psychology is a pseudoscience or otherwise "artificial"?
- James
There is no evidence to support the argument that laws reflects what society wants.
I think it is convoluted and twisted in practice. This is equally what society wants. And it is kind of scary.
That really does not say much at all. What are you really saying.
No, I think psychology is real.
But our society draws a line of adulthood at 18. And then another one at 21. Under 18, you are a minor. Over 18, you are an adult.
Is it an artificial line? Yes. But it's the line we have. We're comfortable with it. No one is protesting that it should be moved to 17 or 19.
Yes, the pathology of this wrongdoing is different if one seeks out teenagers vs. prepubescents. But they're all children.
Folieadeux had a good point a few pages back. If what you're looking for is 18 year olds who look younger, that's easy to find. Why would you take the risk unless you want to look at people who are younger?
One point is that even if Bill had downloaded 300 images of 16-17 year old girls with no images of much younger children, it wouldn't do a thing to change his guilt in the eyes of the law, ergo he would still be going to prison.
- James
From what we have read, it looks like Bill Borgida collected, in his own words, "solo teen erotica".
I put quotation marks around "teenager porn" vs. "child porn" because they are both child porn. Neither involves an adult. Sure, some of the children may be physically capable of reproduction. So what? So are some rare 7 year olds. Puberty should not be the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable.
Yes, we get it already redshoes: For you "letter of the law" = "morality". Except when you really disagree with the law, and then it doesn't, or some random bull[bleep!] like that. To be honest it's really not all that clear.
Here's a shocker: I see no moral difference whatso[bleep!]ingever between someone aged 17 years, 364 days and someone aged 18 years. I really don't give a flying [bleep!] what society has written down on the subject, it's not going to change my moral opinion on the matter one iota.
I do not live by simpleton black and white judgments. I do not allow mob rule to decide for me what is right and what is wrong. For me it the debate does not end as soon as someone simply crosses some arbitrary line in the sand. Specifics and circumstances matter a whole hell of a lot to me. And I'm not at all alone in feeling this way.
I get that they don't to you, Marcelo, and others of your ilk. I'm pretty sure we all get that. Chanting your same simplistic ethical code over and over won't give it any more weight.
Bill broke the law, he's going to jail for it, for a long time. Not a single person here questions any of that. Would you please stop arguing a point that was won by default on page 1.
Not all the time on this issue, it doesn't, which you know because different states have different age of consent/statutory rape laws with different treatment of different age ranges, etc.
You can't make a categorical statement like that, because society's treatment of the issue (defining statutory treatment as societal treatment) isn't monolithic or uniform.
Not yet. Wait for some asshole AUSA to bust a kid because his cellphone has images from his 17 year, 300 day old girlfriend on it. Doesn't matter if the kid's under 18 either, remember?
Please quit treating this like there's obviously one normative answer. There isn't.
I wasn't aware that something had to be necessary to avoid being declared illegal. And you're talking far broader than just Bill's factual situation now, but allowing for no distinctions for relevant/significant factual differences.
The Britney photo also illustrates the point that there are plenty of legal sexy images of underaged girls. There are plenty of legal images of sexy 18 year olds who look underaged lasciviously displaying their genitals. Is there any reason that the illegal images should be necessary?
How would you react if I did?
"Style is originality; fashion is fascism.The two are eternally and unalterably opposed." - Lester Bangs
I'm talking about 18 as the age of majority, you know, you can vote, you can sign contracts, etc. Yes, romeo & juliet laws exist. I have no problem with them. I like romeo & juliet laws. I even think that this law could and should have more flexibility built into it. I absolutely believe that there is a place in the law for both justice and mercy.
I am primarily responding to this specific situation, not every possible permutation and consequence of this law. I would absolutely have more sympathy for the 18 year old sexting with the 17 year old.
But this specific situation is not a close case. We both know that.
I wouldn't care. Go for it. When the movement reaches critical mass, maybe it will even happen, reflecting the will of society. Huzzah.
For someone that claims to have studied the subject in depth, you sure are ignorant of the basics. Maybe this will help:
Eighteen Nineteen
Or maybe this: "teen porn" - Google - Results 1 - 10 of about 18,800,000 for teen porn.
"Teen" is by far the largest legal sub-category in the porn industry.
Redshoes, you are making a completely unwarranted logical leap by assuming when Bill uses a very standard industry marketing term that unquestionably means "legal 18-19 year olds", to mean something completely and totally not that. This isn't unusual language usage, this is the bog standard vernacular.
To claim Bill really meant something completely different then the standard vernacular usage is so wrong it's bordering on libel.
Bill himself used the term "teen erotica" to describe the 300 images (less than 10%) of illegal child pornography found on his computer. I think it's pretty clear that he did not mean "legal adult erotica" by the term.
To be perfectly clear in Bill's own words, "Child pornography . . .includes "teen erotica" - older teenage girls posing by themselves."
He used this term to describe his specific preferred facet of child pornography, not the legal images. I wasn't assuming or claiming anything.
Numerous times I've heard mention, in this thread, of Bill "passing" a polygraph.
I'm told Federal courts do not admit polygraphs because they are highly unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheffer
Hoya, you know more about this than I do. Thoughts?
Actually, that is not correct. Only in the legal definition does the term child pornography include minors. In common usage and for research purposes, child pornography refers to images of prepubescent children, and does not include post-pubertal teenage minors. Although the legal definition is valid when speaking of legalities in the United States, it is pretty useless after that. Every other discipline ( psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc ) does make that distinction. Yet, because of the extreme reactionary nature of this conversation, to do so, is some how condoning or mitigating Bill's behavior.
Also, you keep speaking about the fact that he broke the law and this is the law, blah, blah. We get that. We got that on page 1. Can we move on from that?
The question is how rational are our laws and how effective are our laws. When we are discussing health care, we look at how other civilized industrialized nations handle their health care.
Let's look at the fact that they separate the two in London. Moreover, even within the scope of prepubescent porn, they have the leveled topology I quoted earlier. That topology is designed to understand the spectrum of behavior, and it is used to measure the likely danger to society someone poses, and therefore, they use it in sentencing guidelines. Forgive me, but this just seems smarter and more efficacious to me. In no way do I think sentencing Bill ( and people like Bill ) to five years in prison is the best way to use our resources to address this very serious problem, nor does it help achieve the desired outcome.
You either completely missed my point or chose to ignore it.. People here have been quite emphatic about the fact that society deems any sexualization of a minor down right wrong, no question, no comments, no mitigating qualifications. Yet society also obviously thinks it is okay to deliberately sexualize a teenager; this is made clear in the fact that a legendary magazine, run by adults, for adults, put a 16 year old girl on the cover of their magazine. The photo is deliberately designed and presented so that adult males will sexualize this young girl, promoting the sexualization of minors. To give credit where credit is due, Marcelo is the only one who touched on this issue earlier in the thread.
There is more to this conversation than "He broke the law. He broke the law. He broke the law."
You and others are on the board on one hand take a complete black and white look at all this, and make complete absolutist statements. The undertone is like Bill is either a serial killer pedophile, or innocent, and since he was found with child pornography he is the latter. End of story. ( Obviously I am being facetious with the serial killer pedophile wording, it was to make the point. Unfortunately, with the tone of this thread, even the obvious has to be spelled out clearly. ) Any attempt to discuss this on a more nuanced and accurate level, has been met with indignation and hostility. Again, every academic discipline does look at this on a more nuanced level. Questions that are asked and explored every day about these related issues in all sorts of academic and professional circles, is treated with ridicule and scorn.
People are upset. I get that. They have a right to be. But that does not set the stage for the most productive discussion.
Redshoes still hasn't addressed some of our previous questions.
She says breaking the law is immoral, except when the law is immoral. She's trapped in a tautology and her only retort is, "What do you care about my personal moral system?"
She's coming back and repeating herself like a broken tape recorder without understanding that it adds nothing to the discussion.
From what I can gather, she interjected in the discussion of psychopathology of child vs. teen pornography to say that both are pathologies, because it involves breaking the law. She has no further backing other than to go back to her previous tautology.
I said that I believe that it is immoral for me to break the law. Racetrack also said that it is wrong to break the law. But I'm not on trial here.
What are you adding to the discussion by calling me a "broken tape recorder?"
Some people, myself included, believe that teenagers are not adults and should not be treated as such.
I'm not the one saying any sexualization of minors is bad. Do I think it's a bad trend? Yes. But I didn't bring it up here.
I didn't miss your point, Wexie. I chose to use your image to illustrate that there are sexy pictures of out there of minors which do not qualify as pornography. There are so many legal alternatives to illegal pornography that I don't understand how having it can possibly be justified.
Why should it be justified? Because it's not as bad as pre-pubescent pornography? Is there any good reason to view or collect these images?
Maybe it's "not that bad." But it certainly ain't good.
You are not on trial but it is naive to think your inane comments in a public setting deserves no scrutiny. You have willfully put your words out there, expect them to be criticized especially if they are illogical and have no merit.
Polygraphs are unreliable in that there are certain people who can beat them. Very, very, very, few people are capable of beating a polygraph test. When the polygraph is wrong, it is more likely to find someone being dishonest when they are truthful, than the other way around.
Because of this, polygraphs are not admissible in court ( Though attorneys will always let it slip that someone passed or failed a polygraph in court; the opposing counsel will object but the jury and/or judge will hear the fact. )
This is why law enforcement still routinely uses polygraph tests. If it shows the person is telling the truth, they usually work on the assumption that the person is innocent, unless there is some really compelling reason not to. If it shows they are guilty, they use that to establish they want to continue their investigation to collect as much evidence as they can, and also use that as psychological leverage when interrogating the subject.
Point taken.
No one is saying possession of minor pornography is okay. There is no reason to have it. It should be illegal. The question is how society chooses to combat it, how deviant is the behavior, and what is the most educated and rational assessment of how dangerous a collector of it is to society.
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next > (1048 items total)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: