Children's Court Judge arrested for child porn (1 Viewer)

[NorvilleBarnes]

Whats the discussion on topic?  

Child porn. I just recently became aware that the ACLU supported possession of it. I know there are many on this board who generally support the ACLU and wondering if that changes things for them.

 

[sho nuff]

Child porn. I just recently became aware that the ACLU supported possession of it. I know there are many on this board who generally support the ACLU and wondering if that changes things for them.

Saying they support possession of child porn is also misleading given their actual position.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Saying they support possession of child porn is also misleading given their actual position.

OK How would you describe it in your own words? And do you agree with their position?

 

[sho nuff]

OK How would you describe it in your own words? And do you agree with their position?

Zow did well describing it earlier.  And it isn't the same as what you claimed.

I agree with his interpretation and believe its close to a reasonable position or can be argued as such. 

I don't agree with possession of such things even just "literature"...but for sure photos and videos should be criminal.

 

[bigbottom]

Saying they support possession of child porn is also misleading given their actual position.

I disagree pretty strongly with what appears to be the ACLU’s position that possession of child porn should not be unlawful or give rise to criminal penalties. 

 

[bigbottom]

Zow did well describing it earlier.  And it isn't the same as what you claimed.

I agree with his interpretation and believe its close to a reasonable position or can be argued as such. 

I don't agree with possession of such things even just "literature"...but for sure photos and videos should be criminal.

I don’t think Zow’s interpretation squares with the text from the ACLU that you posted. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'd be interested in hearing a thoughful explanation of the ACLU's position (whatever it actually is) by someone from the ACLU or at least someone that shares the same position.  Does anyone have a link to something like that?

 

[AAABatteries]

No offense but almost everything you've posted in this thread has been both hateful and a lie.

This isn’t true, not that you care.  CM is a standup dude and his points have been valid, even if someone doesn’t like his delivery.

 

[Dickies]

Child porn. I just recently became aware that the ACLU supported possession of it. I know there are many on this board who generally support the ACLU and wondering if that changes things for them.

I generally support the ACLU and feel like they get most of the issues correct. They are wrong on this one.

I don’t want to speak for them, and this is not how I interpreted what I read about their stance upthread, but maybe they are clumsily trying to say that there is a grey area when it comes to child porn. There is a huge difference between someone with thousands of pictures and videos spreading them via encrypted message boards and someone who has a video on their phone of their naked toddler taking a bath. Seems obvious to me the the latter isn’t child porn, but Walgreens refused to develop photos of my kids taking a bath when they were 1, citing potential child porn.

I’m no expert on how child porn cases are prosecuted, but that little incident did get me thinking. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd be interested in hearing a thoughful explanation of the ACLU's position (whatever it actually is) by someone from the ACLU or at least someone that shares the same position.  Does anyone have a link to something like that?

Not sure if this is a fully-accurate summary of their position, but here's what I found after a short and kind of nervous google search.  It's in response to one particular bill but I imagine the general arguments apply more broadly.

AN ACT to amend the labor law and the penal law, in relation to certain employment of minors under sixteen years of age and prohibiting the viewing of or possessing of certain obscene materials involving such minors.


The purpose of this bill is to outlaw sexual conduct of children in any play, exhibition, or motion picture and to criminalize possession of such material where nudity or sexual conduct of a child is depicted.


The NYCLU views the use of children in the production of visual depiction's of sexually explicit conduct as a violation of children's rights when such use is likely to cause: (a) substantial physical harm or, (b) substantial and continuing emotional or psychological harm. Government quite properly has the means to protect the interests of children in these situations by the use of criminal prosecution of those persons who cause such harm to children. However, this bill would make anyone who owned a copy of Blue Lagoon, with Brooke Shields, into a felon.


The New York Civil Liberties Union shares the concern of parents, clergy and community officials about the exploitation of children. The Child Protection Act of 1984, which took effect May 21, 1984, prohibits the publication, advertisement, and sale of child pornography. If implemented properly, this Act would largely address the issue of pornographic exploitation of children by penalizing those committing the harm.


Moreover, Article 263 of the New York Penal Law presently proscribes the promotion of sexual performance of a child. In the 1990 case People v. Keyes (75 NY2d 343), the Court interpreted the statutory definition of "promote" to include the term "to procure" thereby outlawing the "acquisition of child pornography, whether for personal consumption or for distribution to others." Interestingly, in response to defendant's claims that he had a constitutional right to possess child pornography, the Court noted that there was an important distinction between "possession" and "procurement" and that defendant was charged with procurement alone.


In light of the foregoing, the proposed legislation, in the absence of any documentary basis of need after the Keyes case was decided, would dramatically curtail First Amendment freedoms in New York state and expand the authority of the police to regulate simple possession of graphic material in a person's home. The legislation would invite uneven and selective law enforcement.


When first Amendment activity is at stake, the capacity for selective enforcement carries the special danger that public officials will discriminate against those espousing unpopular views and beliefs. The proposed legislation is so vague that it will cause the citizen to "steer clear of the lawful zone" than might be constitutionally required. Libraries, theaters, and individuals will decline possession of lawful material rather than risk the ever-present threat of prosecution.


The NYCLU opposes any restraint on the right of adults to choose materials they read or review or artists, the materials they depict. Freedom of speech and press and freedom to read can be safeguarded only if the First Amendment is abided by strictly to prohibit any restriction on these basic rights. The proposed legislation would undermine these rights while failing to solve the very real problem of child abuse and exploitation.


The NYCLU vigorously opposes its passage.

https://www.nyclu.org/en/nyclu-opposes-child-pornography-bill-would-limit-protected-first-amendment-activity

I've also seen the argument before that while the production of child pornography should be criminalized because it harms kids, the possession of child pornography that has already been produced shouldn't be criminalized because it doesn't inflict further harm.  To be clear, I completely disagree with that argument and I don't know if the ACLU still holds that view or not -- my guess is no.  

And then there's the related issue of child pornography that didn't involve any actual kids -- the kind created entirely on computer.  That's repulsive, but it should be legal IMO.

 

[rct]

I generally support the ACLU and feel like they get most of the issues correct. They are wrong on this one.

I don’t want to speak for them, and this is not how I interpreted what I read about their stance upthread, but maybe they are clumsily trying to say that there is a grey area when it comes to child porn. There is a huge difference between someone with thousands of pictures and videos spreading them via encrypted message boards and someone who has a video on their phone of their naked toddler taking a bath. Seems obvious to me the the latter isn’t child porn, but Walgreens refused to develop photos of my kids taking a bath when they were 1, citing potential child porn.

I’m no expert on how child porn cases are prosecuted, but that little incident did get me thinking. 

No, I think they are taking an extreme libertarian stance, that there should be no government prohibition of any material, be it in writing, photos or video.

 

[djmich]

Not sure if this is a fully-accurate summary of their position, but here's what I found after a short and kind of nervous google search.  It's in response to one particular bill but I imagine the general arguments apply more broadly.

And then there's the related issue of child pornography that didn't involve any actual kids -- the kind created entirely on computer.  That's repulsive, but it should be legal IMO.

I didn't even think about that...ugh

 

[acarey50]

I wonder if their stance is a poorly worded way of saying they view it more akin to how Oregon is treating possession of drugs.

The creation/distribution should be illegal and result in criminal prosecution with jail time.

Possession alone should be treated as an addiction/illness where criminal prosecution is not the endgame, rather treatment of the addiction/mental illness.

I don't know that I can agree with that in the case of child pornography, but I can understand the logic as I do believe it can make sense for drugs.

 

[rockaction]

I do know that some states were trying to discourage the teen behavior of sexting, and were charging kids who had nudity on their phone of other minors with child pornography. That, to me, reeks of abuse of the intent of the law. Perhaps the ACLU is considering those cases when that's their blurb. Which also makes it easier to say they support child pornography.

But I'm with bigbottom and Norville Barnes on this. The text appears to explicitly state that they don't support penalties for possession, which is a very libertarian (some would say radical) approach to the problem.

 

[John123]

And then there's the related issue of child pornography that didn't involve any actual kids -- the kind created entirely on computer.  That's repulsive, but it should be legal IMO.

This is a really weird take.  Porn fuels fantasies.  Child porn created without the use of children still has the power to fuel fantasies, which may motivate someone in to that type of fantasy to act upon it in real life.  I don't care how the child porn is created.  It's problematic either way.  And what if the child porn doesn't use children to perform the actual acts but uses their likeness and a computer to animate it in such a way as to look 100% real?  That's ok? 

 

[rct]

This is a really weird take.  Porn fuels fantasies.  Child porn created without the use of children still has the power to fuel fantasies, which may motivate someone in to that type of fantasy to act upon it in real life.  I don't care how the child porn is created.  It's problematic either way.  And what if the child porn doesn't use children to perform the actual acts but uses their likeness and a computer to animate it in such a way as to look 100% real?  That's ok? 

A weirder take is that government should engage in censorship of any printed or visual matter because it has the power to fuel someone's fantasies - talk about a slippery slope...

 

[rockaction]

This is a really weird take.  Porn fuels fantasies.  Child porn created without the use of children still has the power to fuel fantasies, which may motivate someone in to that type of fantasy to act upon it in real life.  I don't care how the child porn is created.  It's problematic either way.  And what if the child porn doesn't use children to perform the actual acts but uses their likeness and a computer to animate it in such a way as to look 100% real?  That's ok? 

Zow could comment better than I, but the best I suss out the distinction is that the argument would go that child porn statutes aren't intent statutes like you describe, they're strict liability ones. They're to dissuade anyone from coming into any contact with pictures that harm children in their procurement. It's to stop actual harm to actual children, almost in an ex post facto way. The strict liability aspect of it resides in the possession of materials that may have damaged children even if you're doing nothing with them.