| Re: My thoughts on child porn and why I hate it so much... |
Unlimited download news .. |
| \\C\\0S.M.O-S, (megapost@ruskpie.com) |
2015/02/02 13:33 |
insane4boys <nevermind@notsaying.net> wrote in news:54cc73de$0$44387
$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com:
> First off, I must explain what I mean by child port. I mean stuff
> where children are performing sexual acts on either each other
> and/or with adults. Not non-sexual stuff where kids are on nudist
> beaches or the various pay model sites.
>
> The main reason I hate it so much is because there is a chance that
> the children who are involved in it are being forced and raped and
> it saddens me so much to think of those poor innocent children who
> have to be put through that. Yes, it would be wonderful if it wasn't
> even made in the first place, but if people didn't buy, download,
> and trade it, there would be no reason to make it in the first
> place. As long as any chance exists that children are being forced
> and raped, I absolutely cannot feel good about viewing it. Sadly, I
> know that most people don't have a problem with it because a poll
> was started on a boylove forum and asked if people would view it if
> it was legal and over 75% said yes. That really upset me. We all say
> how much we love and care for boys, yet we have no problem in
> getting off on them possibly being raped and abused? This horrible
> stuff is just one of the reasons I cry every day. I truly pray that
> others will agree with me or at least what I have said here will
> plant some seeds.
>
> Well, those are my thoughts on this subject. I am curious as to what
> others will have to say about it.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
Hi Insane.
I think most within these groups would concur with you that those among
us
who wilfully harm children deserve the punishment that the law demands
However I would point out that what you logically conclude as kiddy
porn has little bearing
on the reality of what most law enforcement agencies deem it to be of
recent times.
Below is a piece on the subject written a couple of years ago
Cosmos
======================================================
The laws on what constitutes a pornographic picture or video of a minor
child has not altered very much in the last 10 years, nude pictures of
a minor child are not indecent under the law unless other factors make
it indecent ( sexual activity with another/ sexual excitement or
photographic concentration of the genitalia are the main features that
deem the material pornographic or indecent.
Let us examine say, Newstar jimmy photo collections, are these
pornographic?, clearly under the law of pornography they are not .
The Law regarding legality and what is pornography has however been
neatly circumvented with the introduction of the criteria of "Reason
and likely intent of purpose" ( the wording summary changes across
countries.)
but the results are the same across the USA and Europe.
OK so what am I trying to get across?
Say for example, you have a stash of Wal-Mart catalogues, lots of them,
nothing illegal in owning Wal-Mart catalogues for sure!
Damn they are bulky buggers! so you tear off and just keep just the
cute boys in white shorts and underpants.
That's were the "Intent criteria" kicks in! Bang your busted for
holding Level 1 child porn.
They are deemed and become porn in law, if a jury is persuaded they are
being used for sexual gratification.
Pictures that are in all other respects legal, become porn if they are
used for pornographic or deviant purposes.
Its twisting the law, but then we are paedophiles so deserve shit,
that's the deal these days.
Now lets take for example Newstar, its a child model promotion site,
and sells access for payment, under the law it is reasonable for a model
agency specialising in kids to have pictures of them on their site,
and this allows them to (only just ) for now stay beyond the clutches of
the law (intent of purpose cannot be proved as it is a model promotion
site, and they do not fall foul of pornography law.
Get caught with a large stash of Jimmies on your hard drive and a
garbage can of Damp tissues and Bang your busted for downloading level 1
kiddy porn, That's how it works I in reality.
One important factor With sites such as NEWSTAR is they are based in
Eastern Europe, If they were in the USA/Canada /UK they would be
raided, to obtain customer records.
Their customers would then be raided and busted under the same rules
regarding the Wal-Mart catalogues!
US law enforcement with a successful prosecution of US citizens
possession of pornography in the bag can then head strait back to
Newstar and BUST them on the grounds of Supply of Pornography,
even if under the law their photos and videos were not pornographic a
US prosecutor can now demonstrate they were being use widely for
pornographic purposes.
I strongly suspect That is exactly the scenario that was used for the
recent AZOV bust.
as I never saw or heard of any pornography emanating from them.
C
|
|
|