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

walshb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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.

It relates to my simple point that 'viewing' should not be a crime.

And, if it okay for ONE to view, then any adult should be able if they want, to view.

The crime is the participation, paying for and soliciting!

T-K-O

walshb wrote: »

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?

Anyone who would like to research the topic, should contact the authorities and request some kind of permission / research permit, call it what you will.

The beheading video is a great point. We could get bogged down here and analyze how the brain works and how it processes words like rape, pedophile etc and how different people react differently to such words.

We are also naturally curious beings while a beheading video is not day time TV I don't think it compares to child abuse.

T-K-O

walshb wrote: »

It relates to my simple point that 'viewing' should not be a crime.

And, if it okay for ONE to view, then any adult should be able if they want, to view.

The crime is the participation, paying for and soliciting!

OK, what if these websites had advertisements, by visiting the site you are directly paying for its up keep ??

T-K-O

walshb wrote: »

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?

I'm not getting into it. We are not talking pampers ad - we are talking child porn.

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

It relates to my simple point that 'viewing' should not be a crime.

And, if it okay for ONE to view, then any adult should be able if they want, to view.

I'm calling total bullshit on this.

You're actually equating people viewing illegal material as part of their job with some sort of denial of rights. That's fucked up.

walshb wrote: »

The crime is the participation, paying for and soliciting!

I argue that viewing is soliciting. Paying or not, people will supply the demand, either for cash or for kudos within the community (Don't believe me? then explain why people seed torrents for no monetary gain)

Karl Hungus

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

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.

4chan tbh. It's been known to crop up there from time to time.

mike65

walshb wrote: »

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?

A first point might be that the shortcommings in changing room policy by certain boxing clubs do not make it right if viewed as an image online, the second might be that context is all If you did have such images online what type of search engine terms would one use to find them? On what type of sites would such images be most likely to be found? Boxing fansites? I imagine such images would be cropped or not used. So if you were looking at naked children in the company of adults in an intimate setting such as changing rooms (even if the original context was innocent) it would almost certainly be on "pervert-friendly" sites.

seamus

Walshb, read the bit of the legal document I posted up again.

Pictures of naked children are not illegal or child porn in and of themselves.

Viewing pictures of naked children is not illegal.

Pampers ads showing naked babies are not illegal.

Documentaries showing a child running around a house naked are not illegal.

Again, images of naked children are not illegal.

Unless the image depicts sexual activity or puts primary focus on the genitalia.

K-9

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

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.

Has there been any cases in Ireland like that though? Teen girls type stuff?

I think the law is there to not be restrictive and probably to try and adapt as the internet evolves. As long as there is a bit of cop and no extreme cases like Karl Hungus referenced, there really shouldn't be a problem in Ireland.

Child porn is the issue here, not some law that may be misinterpreted.

T-K-O

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.

I have a degree it IT, unless you know what you are doing the majority of files can be recovered. Also in cases of a pop up or something like that you came follow the trail and find out if these guys sought the info or by some:rolleyes: witch craft if appeared on the computer.

Dennis the Stone

Karl Hungus wrote: »

4chan tbh. It's been known to crop up there from time to time.

Yeah, they love it. But it's usually just jailbait crap isn't it, as opposed to actual CP, is that what these youngsters are getting up to nowadays? Those rambunctious ragamuffins

lmtduffy

consider violent computer games these depict violence and murder,

Murder is a crime.

But the images generated on the computer aren't.

These cartoons depict sexual images of children,

to take sexual images of children is a crime.

But images generated on a computer are.

I think the only difference here is how people judge these crimes base on their moral judgements, and it should be clear to anyone living in this country by now that morality and each persons own moral judgements have no place in the formation of law.

Dennis the Stone

T-K-O wrote: »

I have a degree it IT, unless you know what you are doing the majority of files can be recovered. Also in cases of a pop up or something like that you came follow the trail and find out if these guys sought the info or by some:rolleyes: witch craft if appeared on the computer.

Exactly, so these foolish people that go searching and then empty their cache are kidding themselves (another pun) if they think they're a step ahead.

Dennis the Stone

K-9 wrote: »

Has there been any cases in Ireland like that though? Teen girls type stuff?

I think the law is there to not be restrictive and probably to try and adapt as the internet evolves. As long as there is a bit of cop and no extreme cases like Karl Hungus referenced, there really shouldn't be a problem in Ireland.

Child porn is the issue here, not some law that may be misinterpreted.

Which is why the law should be clearer, it's very vague at the moment.
As for that teen girl stuff, I don't think there's a chance in hell of that ever being lumped in with CP sure it probably makes up about half of the internet. The cartoon decision in Australia or wherever it was was ridiculous in my opinion.

Elessar

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

Exactly, so these foolish people that go searching and then empty their cache are kidding themselves (another pun) if they think they're a step ahead.

Just to chime in here, it's not at all difficult to completely overwrite a modern hard drive making it impossible to recover anything. I wonder where that would leave the law? Not even in relation to illegal porn, but in copyright cases or pirated software. Without evidence there is no case I assume?

Dennis the Stone

I suppose in that case it would be survival of the fittest (paedophile)

seamus

Elessar wrote: »

Just to chime in here, it's not at all difficult to completely overwrite a modern hard drive making it impossible to recover anything. I wonder where that would leave the law? Not even in relation to illegal porn, but in copyright cases or pirated software. Without evidence there is no case I assume?

Correct. Though there may be tertiary ways of providing evidence, such as a showing download logs or traffic logs from an ISP which show what you downloaded and when. However, this would be a longshot and has many holes which can be exploited to present a reasonable doubt in the evidence.

T-K-O

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

Exactly, so these foolish people that go searching and then empty their cache are kidding themselves (another pun) if they think they're a step ahead.

Spot on, deleting files is not really deleting files - even formats can be recovered.

I don't buy for one second such material can appear on ones hardrive. Possible but very unlikely.

seamus

T-K-O wrote: »

I don't buy for one second such material can appear on ones hardrive. Possible but very unlikely.

Maliciously, it's definitley possible. I could write a webpage which looks like a webpage for all intents and purposes but surreptitiously contains a few hundred child pornography images.

Extreme? Absolutely, and it would require some odd form of intent on the part of the person who created the page. But it's possible and very simple to do.

One possible "use" for such a technique would be a distributed database of images - secretely stored on people's machines and used as storage for these groups. Similar to a botnet, but for porn.

T-K-O

seamus wrote: »

Maliciously, it's definitley possible. I could write a webpage which looks like a webpage for all intents and purposes but surreptitiously contains a few hundred child pornography images.

Extreme? Absolutely, and it would require some odd form of intent on the part of the person who created the page. But it's possible and very simple to do.

One possible "use" for such a technique would be a distributed database of images - secretely stored on people's machines and used as storage for these groups. Similar to a botnet, but for porn.

Of course that is possible but its not that easy to do. Also I don't know for certain but Im sure that traffic could be analyzed to vindicate the end user.

My name is URL

When is a depiction considered a depiction?

The OP is about someone possessing Hentai animation, that's a depiction right?

How come movies aren't prone to the same laws then?

List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

Terry

Caoimhín wrote: »

How, how is it only a matter of time?

That is simply conspiracy theory nonsense. You should think these things through before blurting them out on a public message board.

I actually worry that there are loonies like you walking our streets.
Ask your self the following questions;

• Who decides what is a deviant thought.
• What is a thought.
• How can a thought be detected.
• How do you establish what is a conscious thought and what is an unconscious thought.
• What about dreams? I have had some bizarre dreams/nightmares, are they deviant.
• Who would implant these chips? That is risky brain surgery that No surgeon/doctor would be willing to do.
• How is a deviant thought punished in a court of law, for example, how does society measure the severity of the "deviant thought"?

I think people who write bizarre conspiracy daydreams on a public message board should have certain civic rights removed, for example, the right to own a firearm, to vote and to have children.

Rant over.

Banned.

---

As far as I'm concerned, anyone getting off to hentai is a sick ****.

Professey Chin

Anyone want a loan of Urotsukidoji?
Please???.....someone take it.Things after scarring me for life. Damn you cheap manga bargain bin

994

The weird thing is, porn has to be over 18, but the age of consent is 17. So you can sleep with a 17-year-old so long as you keep your eyes shut?