'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.
It's basically economics, supply and demand. There's a demand for such material. Plenty of people pay literally money for the child abuse media. There may not always be direct links of payments for the media, Bitcoin is used frequently which is incredibly hard to truly trace a single direct purchase to some entities who are probably outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Even if not every bit of child sexual abuse media is purchased, as a whole there is a "market" for such material across the dark web or wherever, so the "market" will adjust and create the supply to meet the demand. People consuming this illegal and abhorrent material drive the need for a supply to exist. So the legislation goes after people who just consume, not necessarily distribute, because the market to consume this stuff in the end drives the actual physical abuse that is necessary to create new sources of child sexual abuse footage. The demand for consumption of any type of "product" will generally simultaneously create a system to somehow supply that demand.
I understand what you're saying..but they need to prove the guilt instead of assuming you're guilty first.
Like I said before, if you did not contribute to any of the child porn stuff then you shouldn't be charged with a crime just BECAUSE it happens to be on your computer that ANYONE can freely download. They still need to prove in a court of law how a specific person contributed to said crime. I really don't care what you download..it could be anything. Just using this because its the topic.
IF YOU DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAKING, FILMING, DISTRIBUTION, SHARING, ETC then you shouldn't be labelled a criminal.
THEY NEED TO PROVE YOU'RE GUILTY OF HARM. IN A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF LAW THAT WOULD BE VERY DAMN HARD TO DO.
In our kangaroo courts..you're guilty until proven innocent. Look at theJ6ers. That's not freedom.
'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.
It's basically economics, supply and demand. There's a demand for such material. Plenty of people pay literally money for the child abuse media. There may not always be direct links of payments for the media, Bitcoin is used frequently which is incredibly hard to truly trace a single direct purchase to some entities who are probably outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Even if not every bit of child sexual abuse media is purchased, as a whole there is a "market" for such material across the dark web or wherever, so the "market" will adjust and create the supply to meet the demand. People consuming this illegal and abhorrent material drive the need for a supply to exist. So the legislation goes after people who just consume, not necessarily distribute, because the market to consume this stuff in the end drives the actual physical abuse that is necessary to create new sources of child sexual abuse footage. The demand for consumption of any type of "product" will generally simultaneously create a system to somehow supply that demand.
I understand what you're saying..but they need to prove the guilt instead of assuming you're guilty first.
Like I said before, if you did not contribute to any of the child porn stuff then you shouldn't be charged with a crime just BECAUSE it happens to be on your computer that ANYONE can freely download. They still need to prove in a court of law how a specific person contributed to said crime. I really don't care what you download..it could be anything. Just using this because its the topic.
IF YOU DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAKING, FILMING, DISTRIBUTION, SHARING, ETC then you shouldn't be labelled a criminal.
THEY NEED TO PROVE YOU'RE GUILTY OF HARM. IN A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF LAW THAT WOULD BE VERY DAMN HARD TO DO.
In our kangaroo courts..you're guilty until proven innocent. Look at theJ6ers. That's not freedom.