That's why I say it shouldn't be a crime to 'download' anything from the internet. They've gone too far in calling that action a 'crime.' if you didn't have any participation in any crimes and never re-uploaded 'bad' content back up to the internet..then you shouldn't be charged with any crime. PERIOD.
I err on the side of freedom.
I’ve never considered that argument, but I think it has solid grounding.
I also err on the side of freedom, but it does pain me to think of how some may escape any worldly justice because all they did was download “something.”
If we had much more aggressive prosecution and harsher punishment for uploaders, this might work.
In any case, interesting perspective, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Something to think about.
Anyone truly educated on takedowns knows you go after the suppliers, then the distributors.
Going after the consumers is an almost entirely non-viable strategy.
That said, it's a tough subject to broach because when they're viewing children.. ehhh it's stomach turning.
The worst is that it seems they go after children who ended up stupidly taking pictures when they were young and then having them resurface later after they're an adult (so a victimless crime) harder than going after, say, Epstein Island consumers?
Really weird fucking world we live in right now. Really fucking weird.
Normally I'd also err on the side of freedom but the thought of viewing the indiscretions from just an information perspective is extremely off-putting to me.
Some people did that with Pizzagate investigations and they were depressed for months and IIRC didn't want to keep digging for a while.
I will say though that downloading as a crime is.. really sketchy from a freedom perspective, and a better handle should be on the people actually producing or disseminating.
Goes for all things, like piracy for games and movies too. Better availability, fairer pricing goes a long way on that front vs just trying to oppressively stop it on the consumer front. Taking down aggregates and such would be a better use of resources.
Exactly...because WHERE DOES THE ACTUAL 'CRIME' END??
If NO party was injured by my 'downloading' of (put anything here) then I have committed no crime. If, for instance, I re-upload or share what I've downloaded then that could be considered a contribution to a previous crime (although a very minor contribution).. but something nonetheless.
Simply 'having' something on your computer should never be a crime in itself. If the 'law' thinks someone committed a crime to obtain (illegal material here) then they need to prove that in a court of law. If someone paid for (illegal material here) then of course THAT could be considered a contribution to the crime.
Otherwise, simply 'having' something ON you computer without actually knowing HOW it got there is really no crime. IMHO
Let's say for instance some knucklehead posted a naked picture of a child on Twitter and before Twitter got around to removing it, it was downloaded by 30,000 people.
Should we ran-sack the homes of 30,000 people and haul them all in for pedophilia and put them all on the pedophile list?
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's just one example of why just 'having' something 'bad' on your own private computer shouldn't be a crime just in itself.
'Buying' is contributing to the crime. I'm only talking about downloading free from the internet. Nothing more. Although buying should be a crime and the person 'fined' I still down think that person should be slammed with the title a 'pedophile'.
I'll give you another example. Let's say you purchased a used computer from someone and you later find out that there's tons of child porn on it. You call your local police to tell them that whoever sold you your computer had this stuff on it when you bought it. Well, by 'their definition' you BOTH have committed a crime. You are guilty of just 'having' it on your computer regardless of how it got there.
In their eyes you're guilty until you prove to them that you weren't buying that computer FOR the actual child porn on it. Get what I'm saying.
If you follow the constitutional laws, you should be innocent and they would need to prove that you bought it 'for' the child porn on it. The way our system is set up now it doesn't protect the citizen's rights on this subject. In my opinion, they've gone overboard on what is actually a crime and what participation of that crime is, if any at all.
Even just the download, not just the actual purpose, is what drives the continued creation of more sexual child abuse. The reason even just possession of such material is a big deal is because any viewing of such material also continues the abuse of the children originally depicted in the digital media. It's not only the original act of sexual abuse against children we're worried about, but also the continued exploitation of that child as the media is passed around. And since being in possession of such digital media continues the exploitation of the child, we decide to criminalize such acts.
I don't believe that downloading 'drives' child abuse. Where did you come up with this idea? Well, you need to PROVE this in a court of law that what a 'down-loader' did (on his own) caused any harm to anyone..to even make that a crime.
The person(s) 'passing' them around are the guilty, NOT anyone who can freely download.
"And since being in possession of such digital media continues the exploitation of the child, we decide to criminalize such acts." Here you are using your own assumption to prove itself.
That's why I say it shouldn't be a crime to 'download' anything from the internet. They've gone too far in calling that action a 'crime.' if you didn't have any participation in any crimes and never re-uploaded 'bad' content back up to the internet..then you shouldn't be charged with any crime. PERIOD. I err on the side of freedom.
I’ve never considered that argument, but I think it has solid grounding.
I also err on the side of freedom, but it does pain me to think of how some may escape any worldly justice because all they did was download “something.”
If we had much more aggressive prosecution and harsher punishment for uploaders, this might work.
In any case, interesting perspective, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Something to think about.
Anyone truly educated on takedowns knows you go after the suppliers, then the distributors.
Going after the consumers is an almost entirely non-viable strategy.
That said, it's a tough subject to broach because when they're viewing children.. ehhh it's stomach turning.
The worst is that it seems they go after children who ended up stupidly taking pictures when they were young and then having them resurface later after they're an adult (so a victimless crime) harder than going after, say, Epstein Island consumers?
Really weird fucking world we live in right now. Really fucking weird.
Normally I'd also err on the side of freedom but the thought of viewing the indiscretions from just an information perspective is extremely off-putting to me.
Some people did that with Pizzagate investigations and they were depressed for months and IIRC didn't want to keep digging for a while.
I will say though that downloading as a crime is.. really sketchy from a freedom perspective, and a better handle should be on the people actually producing or disseminating.
Goes for all things, like piracy for games and movies too. Better availability, fairer pricing goes a long way on that front vs just trying to oppressively stop it on the consumer front. Taking down aggregates and such would be a better use of resources.
Exactly...because WHERE DOES THE ACTUAL 'CRIME' END?? If NO party was injured by my 'downloading' of (put anything here) then I have committed no crime. If, for instance, I re-upload or share what I've downloaded then that could be considered a contribution to a previous crime (although a very minor contribution).. but something nonetheless. Simply 'having' something on your computer should never be a crime in itself. If the 'law' thinks someone committed a crime to obtain (illegal material here) then they need to prove that in a court of law. If someone paid for (illegal material here) then of course THAT could be considered a contribution to the crime. Otherwise, simply 'having' something ON you computer without actually knowing HOW it got there is really no crime. IMHO
I can give an easy example.
Let's say for instance some knucklehead posted a naked picture of a child on Twitter and before Twitter got around to removing it, it was downloaded by 30,000 people. Should we ran-sack the homes of 30,000 people and haul them all in for pedophilia and put them all on the pedophile list? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's just one example of why just 'having' something 'bad' on your own private computer shouldn't be a crime just in itself.
'Buying' is contributing to the crime. I'm only talking about downloading free from the internet. Nothing more. Although buying should be a crime and the person 'fined' I still down think that person should be slammed with the title a 'pedophile'.
I'll give you another example. Let's say you purchased a used computer from someone and you later find out that there's tons of child porn on it. You call your local police to tell them that whoever sold you your computer had this stuff on it when you bought it. Well, by 'their definition' you BOTH have committed a crime. You are guilty of just 'having' it on your computer regardless of how it got there. In their eyes you're guilty until you prove to them that you weren't buying that computer FOR the actual child porn on it. Get what I'm saying. If you follow the constitutional laws, you should be innocent and they would need to prove that you bought it 'for' the child porn on it. The way our system is set up now it doesn't protect the citizen's rights on this subject. In my opinion, they've gone overboard on what is actually a crime and what participation of that crime is, if any at all.
Even just the download, not just the actual purpose, is what drives the continued creation of more sexual child abuse. The reason even just possession of such material is a big deal is because any viewing of such material also continues the abuse of the children originally depicted in the digital media. It's not only the original act of sexual abuse against children we're worried about, but also the continued exploitation of that child as the media is passed around. And since being in possession of such digital media continues the exploitation of the child, we decide to criminalize such acts.
I don't believe that downloading 'drives' child abuse. Where did you come up with this idea? Well, you need to PROVE this in a court of law that what a 'down-loader' did (on his own) caused any harm to anyone..to even make that a crime.
The person(s) 'passing' them around are the guilty, NOT anyone who can freely download.
"And since being in possession of such digital media continues the exploitation of the child, we decide to criminalize such acts." Here you are using your own assumption to prove itself.