Only a matter of time before you get jailed for merely having a dirty thought... :o

My name is URL

walshb wrote: »

I know what you mean. I think it's the actual downloading that is the problem; but it can be tricky, because maybe a person viewed images, clicked the 'x' to get rid of the image, yet it was saved to cache?

I am not a tech expert, but if an image is displayed and viewed and the person then
clicks the 'x' to close the image, does this image get stored?

Yeah, once the image loads from a site it's stored in the cache/downloaded.

I've witnessed problems arising from that fact in the past, with copyrighted videos. Apparently watching them online is legal but downloading them is illegal.

Stupid really because either way it needs to be downloaded

walshb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Yup, and deleting a file doesn't get rid of it either. Ain't technology grand

Okay, so if this is the case, can you be prosecuted?

This isn't intentional downloading. I disagree that a person
should be prosecuted for simply viewing an image that is there to be viewed and that
other persons can view with immunity. Jurors, judges, cops and social workers
view these images and nobody says anything and it's all down to being
part of their job. I think it's grossly unfair that they can
hide behind the safety of the 'job' and someone else is then
prosecuted for viewing the same images they are viewing!

It's like the film censor. A bunch of people sit and watch films all day and then
have the gall to censor the adult population on what is and isn't fit
for viewing.

One other query, does a credit card or money have to be exchanged
for a prosecution? This is when it becomes a crime IMO!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

seamus wrote: »

It's worth noting that here in Ireland it is actually illegal to have images of child pornography, whether or not they contain real children.

That includes Hentai or Animé. It also includes women posing as children. So if you have a model/porn actress playing an underage girl (as opposed to just dressing in a school uniform or wearing pigtails), then yes you can be done for child pornography. Even if the woman is in her 30's.

It's a weird one and a tough one to call.

WTF?

How can it be child porn if she is in her 30's? That is a fcuking nutty law.

Now another thing. Those of us with children may have taken photos of them in their nip... is it bad? Does that make you a pedo now? The world has gond PC mad... it really has...

K-9

My name is URL wrote: »

Yeah, once the image loads from a site it's stored in the cache/downloaded.

I've witnessed problems arising from that fact in the past, with copyrighted videos. Apparently watching them online is legal but downloading them is illegal.

Stupid really because either way it needs to be downloaded

Could you go to the Cache location and just view it there?*

*Probably stupid question! Just thinking as long as you haven't physically downloaded it into a media player or something, it would be a way around it.

johnny_knoxvile

thelordofcheese wrote: »

nope, but thanks for playing.

your welcome!

Galvasean

So say hypothetically I was surfing the web looking for some proper adults only porno and while browsing I skimmed past some links to child porn would I be accountable?

My name is URL

K-9 wrote: »

Could you go to the Cache location and just view it there?*

*Probably stupid question! Just thinking as long as you haven't physically downloaded it into a media player or something, it would be a way around it.

Yeah, it's saved as a normal viewable file once it loads. Unless you empty your cache, it's considered downloaded.

Here's a good add-on for FF that allows you to easilly view everything in your cache

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

Okay, so if this is the case, can you be prosecuted?

This isn't intentional downloading.

the problem would be proving intent, how do you tell that it wasn't just a quick "i wonder what this i--OHGODMYEYESCLOSECLOSECLOSE!" and someone getting their rocks off. Law and technology aren't always the closest, so i imagine they make possesion (regardless of intent) a crime in the hope that they'd catch as many actual paedophiles as possible.
The downside of this approach is obvious.

walshb wrote: »

I disagree that a person
should be prosecuted for simply viewing an image that is there to be viewed and that
other persons can view with immunity. Jurors, judges, cops and social workers
view these images and nobody says anything and it's all down to being
part of their job. I think it's grossly unfair that they can
hide behind the safety of the 'job' and someone else is then
prosecuted for viewing the same images they are viewing!

It's like the film censor. A bunch of people sit and watch films all day and then
have the gall to censor the adult population on what is and isn't fit
for viewing.

that's a whole other argument and i think it's a bit childish to go "well THEY do it, lemmie at it" when the people you're citing do it for a living as opposed to for pleasure.

walshb wrote: »

One other query, does a credit card or money have to be exchanged
for a prosecution? This is when it becomes a crime IMO!

I doubt it essential, but that would prove intent.

walshb

Galvasean wrote: »

So say hypothetically I was surfing the web looking for some proper adults only porno and while browsing I skimmed past some links to child porn would I be accountable?

You shouldn't be as you have committed no crime and even if you intentionally view, you
still have done no wrong. Should you start to download and use cash to pay for such images, then you are crossing the line I would say

walshb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

that's a whole other argument and i think it's a bit childish to go "well THEY do it, lemmie at it" when the people you're citing do it for a living as opposed to for pleasure.
t.

Well, it is gonna' be very hard to prove a person viewed an image for pleasure. How do you prove it and what is the difference between members of the gardai or judiciary or jurors viewing it and the person being prosecuted for viewing it.

All are viewing, so why is ONE person different from the rest of the viewers?

Like I said, when you start paying or requesting with payment for these images, this is when I see a crime!

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

How do you prove it and what is the difference between members of the gardai or judiciary or jurors viewing it and the person being prosecuted for viewing it.
All are viewing, so why is ONE person different from the rest of the viewers?

I'm gonna go with one set having to do it as a job requirement, and the rest of us, not so much.

walshb wrote: »

Like I said, when you start paying or requesting with payment for these images, this is when I see a crime!

I'm fairly certain that people have cottened onto this, i believe that the majority of childporn is distributed for free on closed networks. If something is *that* illegal i don't think anyone would be daft enough to pay by card. Kinda in the same way drug dealers don't take visa.
And if it's hard cash, good luck tracking it.

K-9

walshb wrote: »

You shouldn't be as you have committed no crime and even if you intentionally view, you
still have done no wrong. Should you start to download and use cash to pay for such images, then you are crossing the line I would say

So it's only wrong if you pay for it?

walshb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'm gonna go with one set having to do it as a job requirement, and the rest of us, not so much.



I'm fairly certain that people have cottened onto this, i believe that the majority of childporn is distributed for free on closed networks. If something is *that* illegal i don't think anyone would be daft enough to pay by card. Kinda in the same way drug dealers don't take visa.
And if it's hard cash, good luck tracking it.

Many have been caught by their credit card.

Anyway, my point is simple. To view and see is NOT a crime as far
as I am concerned. When you participate and solicit, then you
are open for hunting!

Nehaxak

Galvasean wrote: »

So say hypothetically I was surfing the web looking for some proper adults only porno and while browsing I skimmed past some links to child porn would I be accountable?

I suppose if you then clicked on those links, knowing they were child porn then yes, I guess you would be held accountable for your own actions which you decided yourself to view.

You can also use http://www.hotline.ie/ to report the sites/images if you did happen upon them.

Regards to cops/judges/whatever having to view the images to determine their nature - they're excused from prosecution for this purpose but I wouldn't think any of them would be of sane mind afterwards and I'm sure have to get some sort of counselling (I presume).

I'm not sold on the idea that cartoon type child porn, manga or otherwise, can be seen as a victimless crime as there have been many a case in the past that I've read about in our own media of pedo's using such images to groom their victims. One of them I read a few years back related to one scumbag who used simpson images to groom his own children as if to show it were normal behaivour, "look kids, even the Simpson kids do it" :mad:

I'm sorry but it's still child porn, it's sick and twisted and if you somehow get your jollies from looking at it, cartoon or otherwise then you're a sick twisted individual and I cannot understand the mindset involved in trying to justify it in any way nor to somehow suggest it's anything otherwise.
Cartoon pornography is a known method used by pedo's to groom children and that I think is why it was made illegal in this country.

walshb

K-9 wrote: »

So it's only wrong if you pay for it?

Yes. Again, what is the crime in your eyes seeing a crime. What crime
have you committed by clicking on an image? The image is
there and will always be there. Because some choose to view
the images is their business, sick as it may seem to me, what
crime have they committed by viewing and seeing the image?

Karl Hungus

K-9 wrote: »

So it's only wrong if you pay for it?

By paying for it, you're funding a market and actively propagating abuse.

Nehaxak

Yes. Again, what is the crime in your eyes seeing a crime. What crime
have you committed by clicking on an image? The image is
there and will always be there. Because some choose to view
the images is their business, sick as it may seem to me, what
crime have they committed by viewing and seeing the image?

Eh, am I right in thinking that you and some others actually think it's NOT a crime, not illegal nor is there anything wrong in viewing child porn !? :eek::eek:

walshb

Nehaxak wrote: »

Eh, am I right in thinking that you and some others actually think it's NOT a crime, not illegal nor is there anything wrong in viewing child porn !? :eek::eek:

Read my posts. I believe the crime is the participating, soliciting and payment for the acts.
So, if I or someone else happen to click on child porn images, does this make me a criminal?
Personally, I wouldn't be able to stomach the images, but some can and do
view them. Are they criminals for simply seeing an image?

How about those parents who see images of naked kids in their house of
their friends house. Are they criminals?

What about the tv ads with naked babies? Are we criminals for seeing these

This then can be applied to all crime, all the tv crime we see etc etc. Does this make us all
criminals?

Nehaxak

walshb wrote: »

Read my posts. I believe the crime is the participating, soliciting and payment for the acts.

Well your belief is wrong, both morally and in the eyes of the law.

So, if I or someone else happen to click on child porn images, does this make me a criminal?

Not unless/until you are convicted but what you would be doing would be illegal.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to stomach the images, but some can and do view them Are they criminals for simply seeing an image?

See above.

This then can be applied to all crime, all the tv crime we see etc etc. Does this make us all criminals?

When was the last time they showed child porn on Tv ?

K-9

walshb wrote: »

Yes. Again, what is the crime in your eyes seeing a crime. What crime
have you committed by clicking on an image? The image is
there and will always be there. Because some choose to view
the images is their business, sick as it may seem to me, what
crime have they committed by viewing and seeing the image?

Sorry, think you took me up wrong. You made a distinction between downloading it and paying for it. Yes?

The viewing is too grey an area I think.

walshb

Nehaxak wrote: »

Well your belief is wrong, both morally and in the eyes of the law.



Not unless/until you are convicted but what you would be doing would be illegal.



See above.



When was the last time they showed child porn on Tv ?

Did I say they showed child porn on tv, however, if you want to get
technical, how about the tv ads for pampers etc which do show naked
babies? Now, if it's okay for that to be allowed, how can the law then prosecute
persons for viewing images of children online?


"Well your belief is wrong, both morally and in the eyes of the law."

Eh, I distinctly said that paying for, soliciting and participating is wrong; it is heinous.

However, seeing or viewing is IMO not a crime, and if it is, then we commit crime every day of our lives by witnessing crime

walshb

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, think you took me up wrong. You made a distinction between downloading it and paying for it. Yes?

The viewing is too grey an area I think.

Yes, and now there is another distinction because I was told that
just because you 'x' out of an image, this does not mean
the image is gone and you can be prosecuted if that 'deleted'
image is retrieved. Ludicrous!

To be clear: I think a person should be prosecuted if the person is participating,
paying for images and soliciting for images.

Viewing and seeing with ones eyes is not a crime, sick as it may be
to some people, me included!

My name is URL

walshb wrote: »

However, seeing or viewing is IMO not a crime, and if it is, then we commit crime every day of our lives by witnessing crime

That's a fair point, however the fact that people witness everyday crime is not an incentive for criminals to keep doing it.

If somebody is making and distributing child porn and realises a market is there for it, then there is incentive to keep abusing a child, so in a way viewing it drives it

walshb

My name is URL wrote: »

That's a fair point, however the fact that people witness everyday crime is not an incentive for criminals to keep doing it.

If somebody is making and distributing child porn and realises a market is there for it, then there is incentive to keep abusing a child, so in a way viewing it drives it

That is where the transfer of funds makes it more a crime. The person who simply views it ONLY, and is not paying for it, does not commit a crime IMO. Soliciting for it and paying cash is where there is a crime, and it's an incentive for the scum to keep producing!

If a person is found NOT to have paid cash for an image and not to have
solicited or participated, then they have not committed a crime

Stercus Accidit

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:b2XwYRnCjYIKRM:http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd59/jddigitalworld/2012_logo.png

The London 2012 olympics logo can be viewed as Lisa simpson giving a BJ, where is the line drawn on a fictitious image as to what it depicts?

We've established an image of a 32 year old can be child porn if she is depicting a child (wtf) and that a few squigly drawings can be child porn. Do we have to decide the intended ages as imagined by the artist to decide whether the manga girls drawn are old enough to legally consent? FFS, people, get the head out of the arse, drawn images are just that, pen and paper, mspaint and photoshop, and are defined so loosely that the thoughts of the artist and viewer become definitive in their legality.

"the pedos mite use the pics to lure the kids"

So f*cking what, ban pictures, open up a legal blackhole that sucks in innocent internet users and artists and removes their human rights?
Or outlaw grooming for sex of underage children?

duh.

K-9

Double post!

K-9

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and now there is another distinction because I was told that
just because you 'x' out of an image, this does not mean
the image is gone and you can be prosecuted if that 'deleted'
image is retrieved. Ludicrous!

To be clear: I think a person should be prosecuted if the person is participating,
paying for images and soliciting for images.

Viewing and seeing with ones eyes is not a crime, sick as it may be
to some people, me included!

Yes, but if you have physically downloaded it onto your hard drive, I don't think the fact that you paid for it or not should matter. The intent is there to store it, Credit Card details or not. I think it was pointed out that a lot of this stuff is now free, to avoid paying for it and some company having your CC details.

In your scenario only somebody dumb enough to pay for it and leave a payment trail would get prosecuted.

I agree on the viewing part. Though as has been shown here, you could just view your cache and just plead ignorance.

walshb

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but if you have physically downloaded it onto your hard drive, I don't think the fact that you paid for it or not should matter. The intent is there to store it, Credit Card details or not. I think it was pointed out that a lot of this stuff is now free, to avoid paying for it and some company having your CC details.

It is a massive area for debate and censorship plays a major part here.
It is heinous and disgusting, but it is happening and I feel that
the law is spending far too much time chasing "viewers" instead of getting
the filthy beasts who are committing the acts.

I just cannot see how the law can honestly attempt to prosecute
persons for viewing material. This is censorship that I do
not agree with. If it's deemed illegal to view the images, then NOBODY
and I mean nobody should be able to view it without repercussions.

It's not fair that certain members of the public are immune and can view
just because it's "part of their job". In an adult world, censorship should not
exist and if it's okay for 'this' adult to view, then it's okay for all adults to view.

The crime is those who participate, pay for and solicit

Dennis the Stone

Well, if a person views it, don't they possess it at the same time? People who actively seek this stuff don't really fare well in court by arguing that they were only viewing and not in possession as most people now are aware of caches and the like. Although, if it comes onto your screen through no fault of your own, they would hardly prosecute. The thing is, those cases are rare as they nearly always find that the person is searching and returning to this type of content.

I think there have been cases in the US where people have been done for possession even though they deleted their cache. The very fact they deleted their caches after every visit was proof that they knew and understood that they were downloading as well. So repeated visits to those sites, added to deleting the cache afterwards, added to a very simple recovery of thousands of what-you-thought-were-deleted images by the law enforcement, you could well be in trouble then.

It would really go against you if you were very computer literate as then they could argue that you were aware that everything leaves a trace on a hard drive, and technically you were knowingly possessing it even though it was actually deleted.

seamus

For those of you who are interested, here's the relevant interpretation in Irish law:

"child pornography" means—

(a) any visual representation—

(i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

(ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

(iii) whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child

Part (i) is interesting because it essentially makes it illegal to write a book from a first-person perspective about a child who is being abused.

There are also parts about audio too - such as a radio play.

In relation to possession of child porn:

(2) Section 5(1) and subsection (1) shall not apply to a person who possesses child pornography—
[GA]

(a) in the exercise of functions under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1992, the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, or the Video Recordings Acts, 1989 and 1992, or
[GA]

(b) for the purpose of the prevention, investigation or prosecution of offences under this Act.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2), it shall be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under section 5(1) or subsection (1) for the accused to prove that he or she possessed the child pornography concerned for the purposes of bona fide research.

Which is how it's OK for Gardai and other workers to view child porn in their investigations.

Interestingly, nowhere in the entire document does it require any sexual intent. The prosecution do not have to show that you enjoyed viewing the images, rather that you simply have them. So do take care and don't let curiosity get the better of you. Nobody wants to see a man getting his head cut off with a knife, but a lot of us seem to have an inbuilt morbid curiosity which compels us to view these things.

In this country, it is absolutely not illegal to take pictures of your child in the bath or in any other kind of normal everyday parental scenario.
It's also not illegal to take pictures which contain children generally, such as at a football match or in a park.

K-9

My name is URL wrote: »

If somebody is making and distributing child porn and realises a market is there for it, then there is incentive to keep abusing a child, so in a way viewing it drives it

Exactly, if nobody viewed it, there would be no market. A bit OTT and idealistic alright, but it's true. It's a bit like using cocaine and saying I am not part of the drugs problem.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:b2XwYRnCjYIKRM:http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd59/jddigitalworld/2012_logo.png

The London 2012 olympics logo can be viewed as Lisa simpson giving a BJ, where is the line drawn on a fictitious image as to what it depicts?

We've established an image of a 32 year old can be child porn if she is depicting a child (wtf) and that a few squigly drawings can be child porn. Do we have to decide the intended ages as imagined by the artist to decide whether the manga girls drawn are old enough to legally consent? FFS, people, get the head out of the arse, drawn images are just that, pen and paper, mspaint and photoshop, and are defined so loosely that the thoughts of the artist and viewer become definitive in their legality.

"the pedos mite use the pics to lure the kids"

So f*cking what, ban pictures, open up a legal blackhole that sucks in innocent internet users and artists and removes their human rights?
Or outlaw grooming for sex of underage children?

duh.

That's the type of strawman often used in discussions like this. It's the type of pictures, not all pictures! :eek:

walshb

seamus wrote: »

For those of you who are interested, here's the relevant interpretation in Irish law:

Part (i) is interesting because it essentially makes it illegal to write a book from a first-person perspective about a child who is being abused.

There are also parts about audio too - such as a radio play.

In relation to possession of child porn:
Which is how it's OK for Gardai and other workers to view child porn in their investigations.

Interestingly, nowhere in the entire document does it require any sexual intent. The prosecution do not have to show that you enjoyed viewing the images, rather that you simply have them. So do take care and don't let curiosity get the better of you. Nobody wants to see a man getting his head cut off with a knife, but a lot of us seem to have an inbuilt morbid curiosity which compels us to view these things.

In this country, it is absolutely not illegal to take pictures of your child in the bath or in any other kind of normal everyday parental scenario.
It's also not illegal to take pictures which contain children generally, such as at a football match or in a park.

How is it OK for them and not us?

That's what bugs me. If ONE adult is allowed view, then all adults being equal, should be allowed view and that is what censorship bugs the crap out of me.

Catch the scum committing the crime and the scum soliciting!

This country is insane with it. We have a bunch of people who can legislate and tell us
what is and is not to be viewed, AFTER they themselves have viewed it.

T-K-O

The viewing of these images is most certainly a crime. The argument that viewing such material is not a crime is a little to black and white for me.
It;s not that simple. For example if you are walking down the street and happen to see something like that going on you can hardly be prosecuted for witnessing the act.

Now, if you log onto your computer and search for such material you are then part of the demand and deserve everything you get.

If NOBODY is allowed to view such images how can we catch these guys ??

walshb

T-K-O wrote: »

The viewing of these images is most certainly a crime. The argument that viewing such material is not a crime is a little to black and white for me.
It;s not that simple. For example if you are walking down the street and happen to see something like that going on you can hardly be prosecuted for witnessing the act.

Now, if you log onto your computer and search for such material you are then part of the demand and deserve everything you get.

If NOBODY is allowed to view such images how can we catch these guys ??

I disagree, if we apply this, then what about ads on tv showing
naked babies? Can we be prosecuted for this?

If we solicit and pay, then this is the difference. The material is there and some
choose to view it. How are they criminals for viewing something and NOT
soliciting or paying?

Stercus Accidit

(ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

Any film which has shown a child walk in on their parents at it is child pornography in this country?

seamus

walshb wrote: »

How is it OK for them and not us?

That's what bugs me. If ONE adult is allowed view, then all adults being equal, should be allowed view and that is what censorship bugs the crap out of me.

But it's not illegal to view them. It's illegal to be in possession of them, unless you're investigating a crime or carrying out legitimate research. Googling out of curiosity is not "research".

Almost exactly the same criteria that apply to drugs, actually.

K-9

walshb wrote: »

It is a massive area for debate and censorship plays a major part here.
It is heinous and disgusting, but it is happening and I feel that
the law is spending far too much time chasing "viewers" instead of getting
the filthy beasts who are committing the acts.

I just cannot see how the law can honestly attempt to prosecute
persons for viewing material. This is censorship that I do
not agree with. If it's deemed illegal to view the images, then NOBODY
and I mean nobody should be able to view it without repercussions.

It's not fair that certain members of the public are immune and can view
just because it's "part of their job". In an adult world, censorship should not
exist and if it's okay for 'this' adult to view, then it's okay for all adults to view.

The crime is those who participate, pay for and solicit

I suppose they are taking the zero tolerance approach, which is hard to implement at the best of times, never mind on the internet.

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

Well, if a person views it, don't they possess it at the same time? People who actively seek this stuff don't really fare well in court by arguing that they were only viewing and not in possession as most people now are aware of caches and the like. Although, if it comes onto your screen through no fault of your own, they would hardly prosecute. The thing is, those cases are rare as they nearly always find that the person is searching and returning to this type of content.

I think there have been cases in the US where people have been done for possession even though they deleted their cache. The very fact they deleted their caches after every visit was proof that they knew and understood that they were downloading as well. So repeated visits to those sites, added to deleting the cache afterwards, added to a very simple recovery of thousands of what-you-thought-were-deleted images by the law enforcement, you could well be in trouble then.

It would really go against you if you were very computer literate as then they could argue that you were aware that everything leaves a trace on a hard drive, and technically you were knowingly possessing it even though it was actually deleted.

Have never just happened to find child porn myself though I'm sure it can happen.

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

It is a massive area for debate and censorship plays a major part here.
It is heinous and disgusting, but it is happening and I feel that
the law is spending far too much time chasing "viewers" instead of getting
the filthy beasts who are committing the acts.

I'd disagree and i'd also argue that chasing the 'viewers' can and does lead to the people who produce it. I mean how do you arrest the produces if you can't trace them. Best way to do that is to go after the people they supply.

walshb wrote: »

I just cannot see how the law can honestly attempt to prosecute
persons for viewing material. This is censorship that I do
not agree with. If it's deemed illegal to view the images, then NOBODY
and I mean nobody should be able to view it without repercussions.

It's not fair that certain members of the public are immune and can view
just because it's "part of their job". In an adult world, censorship should not
exist and if it's okay for 'this' adult to view, then it's okay for all adults to view.

I'm sorry i can't take this seriously at all. It's almost disgustingly childish. Peoples jobs (especially in law enforcement) can place them in situations where in order to do their job they must view illegal material. This does not in any way give you the right to view said materials themselves, because thats not your damn job.

Look at it this way, theres a branch of the gardai who are called in when it looks like they might have to deal with armed criminals. They can shoot people as part of their line of work. Using your reasoning above, because they can under certain circumstances in their job, we should all get to do it.

"It's not fair?" cry me a river.

walshb

seamus wrote: »

But it's not illegal to view them. It's illegal to be in possession of them, unless you're investigating a crime or carrying out legitimate research. Googling out of curiosity is not "research".

Almost exactly the same criteria that apply to drugs, actually.

So a garda or judge or social worker can use the whole, "I googled out of research"
But I or others cannot?

There was something I heard where people were encouraged to report
inappropriate material on the net, incl child porn.
Would report it? No way, because who is to say that I then do not become
a target for investigation.

That's the problem here.

Here's another thought. Murder is to many the most heinous of all crimes. How come nobody was pursued for downloading and watching the beheadings of persons in
Iraq and Afghansitan?

My name is URL

What about the movie Hounddog?

Surely that went beyond the boundary of whats legal here... or does the fact that it's an art form make it alright to depict child abuse?

T-K-O

walshb wrote: »

I disagree, if we apply this, then what about ads on tv showing
naked babies? Can we be prosecuted for this?

If we solicit and pay, then this is the difference. The material is there and some
choose to view it. How are they criminals for viewing something and NOT
soliciting or paying?

Apple and Oranges.

Without being graphic were is the crime on the TV ad ? I can tell you were the crime is in these pics

A baby in, lets say a pampers ad is completely different to this material as you well know.

Crime and internet crimes require separate legislation you cannot have a one fits all law.

walshb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I

I'm sorry i can't take this seriously at all. It's almost disgustingly childish. Peoples jobs (especially in law enforcement) can place them in situations where in order to do their job they must view illegal material. This does not in any way give you the right to view said materials themselves, because thats not your damn job.

"It's not fair?" cry me a river.

I am talking about censorship and viewing material, not bloody shooting people dead!

Do you agree with persons censoring films for ADULTS here in Ireland?

Do you think it's okay that a bunch of people can sit and view material and
then tell the rest of the adult populatuion that NO, they cannot view it?

And, all because its' part of my job?

Nehaxak

walshb wrote: »

Did I say they showed child porn on tv, however, if you want to get technical, how about the tv ads for pampers etc which do show naked babies?

They don't show naked babies. There's guidelines and so on in place now and believe me if there were an advert showing naked children it'd soon be taken off air, if it even managed to get that far in the first place. There'd be hell to pay for any TV exec who allowed a naked child advert to be shown on TV.

Now, if it's okay for that to be allowed, how can the law then prosecute persons for viewing images of children online?

...but it's not ok for that to be allowed and it's not allowed ?

In the PAST there were some dubious adverts showing naked children, including that which was shown by charities. It's not right, it's wrong, it was wrong then and it's wrong now and there have since been guidelines put in place to stop this from happening and it should not happen in the future. If it does then report it, either to hotline.ie or whatever broadcasting regulation authorities to have it acted upon.

"Well your belief is wrong, both morally and in the eyes of the law."

Eh, I distinctly said that paying for, soliciting and participating is wrong; it is heinous.
However, seeing or viewing is IMO not a crime, and if it is, then we commit crime every day of our lives by witnessing crime

Look dude, it's as simple as this, it is a crime whether you like it or not to look at child pornography. If you happen to accidentally get some images up on your screen while searching for "tits" on google images then I would not think you could be prosecuted for that (though THAT is where the law is an arse as I'm sure you probably COULD be prosecuted even though you did NOT explicitly search for child porn images).

The law is not clear enough and it can be misinterpreted I'm sure and that is also wrong. The laws themselves should be clear-cut enough that they are easily understood and policed but far as I can tell they are not. It is though clear enough to know that viewing child porn, including that of cartoon or drawn depictions of child pornography is/are illegal.

K-9

walshb wrote: »

How is it OK for them and not us?

That's what bugs me. If ONE adult is allowed view, then all adults being equal, should be allowed view and that is what censorship bugs the crap out of me.

Catch the scum committing the crime and the scum soliciting!

This country is insane with it. We have a bunch of people who can legislate and tell us
what is and is not to be viewed, AFTER they themselves have viewed it.

Eh, Because the Guards have to view the images to see what they have viewed?

Is that interfering with your rights?

walshb

T-K-O wrote: »

Apple and Oranges.

Without being graphic were is the crime on the TV ad ? I can tell you were the crime is in these pics

A baby in, lets say a pampers ad is completely different to this material as you well know.

Crime and internet crimes require separate legislation you cannot have a one fits all law.

I don't well know as I have never deliberately viewed child porn, but if naked children
is an example of child porn, then I have viewed this on tv. So, if it's blatantly
on tv, then how can it be a crime to view it online?

Karl Hungus

K-9 wrote: »

Have never just happened to find child porn myself though I'm sure it can happen.

The thing is, the definitions of child porn can be extremely broad, and in the witch hunt, innocent people can be prosecuted for what may extremely loosely fall under an already loose definition. As Mike pointed out earlier, this kind of thing.

Case in point, the Irish laws as quoted by Seamus:

(ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

With that definition, Watchmen could be considered child porn because of the part where the young Walter Kovacs walks in on his mother having sex with a client.

You might not just happen to come across child porn as you define it, but the laws are so vague and scattershot, you could very well own child porn as the state defines it.

walshb

Nehaxak wrote: »

They don't show naked babies. There's guidelines and so on in place now and believe me if there were an advert showing naked children it'd soon be taken off air, if it even managed to get that far in the first place. There'd be hell to pay for any TV exec who allowed a naked child advert to be shown on TV.
llegal.

I have seen docs on tv where children were naked and I thought it quite inappropriate.

Hey, here is a better one. In some gyms here in Ireland, children openly change in the adult changing room and are completely naked amongst many other adults, and nobody bats an eyelid. It's not illegal, but when someone clicks
an image of a naked child online, then it becomes illegal?

K-9

walshb wrote: »

So a garda or judge or social worker can use the whole, "I googled out of research"
But I or others cannot?

Guards and judges have been prosecuted AFAIK so that rules that out. It would only be a defense if they where actively involved in a case. The research point could be used by somebody who was doing a course related to it.

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

I am talking about censorship and viewing material, not bloody shooting people dead!

Do you agree with persons censoring films for ADULTS here in Ireland?

Do you think it's okay that a bunch of people can sit and view material and
then tell the rest of the adult populatuion that NO, they cannot view it?

And, all because its' part of my job?

What has your issues with IFCO got to do with child porn, because up until now your position seems to have been "if people can view child porn because they it's part of their job then so should anyone".

If you're arguing about film censorship, that's another topic, if you're arguing what i think you're arguing then everything i said was valid.

Dennis the Stone

K-9 wrote: »

Have never just happened to find child porn myself though I'm sure it can happen.

I know, it's very, very unlikely that child porn will present itself if you're not looking for it. Most of the people who claim that are just bullshi*ting, they go and look for it.

"Your honour, I was simply looking up a historical document concerning the Great civil uprising of Guineau-Buisseau when I was suddenly presented with pictures of little girls and horses in compromising positions. I was so shocked and disgusted that I immediately shut down my computer after 10 minutes and retired to the bathroom, where grunting and muffled noises were to be heard."

If those cartoon-porn images and women dressed as young girls is classified as child porn then it would be very easy to come across (pardon the pun) as you see thumbnails on legitimate porn sites, warez sites, etc. all the time. The Milhouse being screwed by Doctor Zoidberg industry makes billions a year I suppose.