You be the judge - sexual assault?

[geordief]

I think the present legal system varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, doesn't it?

Suppose somebody draws a picture of Cupid. What harm has been done? If any, who has been harmed? Jail or no jail?

I am asking for an offense which might at present incur a penalty and where the penalty could be different if the principle of "actual harm caused" would be taken into consideration.

(The "Cupid" example clearly incurs no likelihood of punishment)

Yes legal systems do vary from jurisdiction too jurisdiction (and I am very unfamiliar with how that would apply in these cases)

 

[parmalee]

Who said anything about packaging or distrubuting? A guy draws a picture of a child. Should that be illegal?

OK, a person takes photographs of his friends' children in various states of undress--states which normal people would regard as innocent and acceptable, i.e., not perceived in any way as suggestive, pornographic or erotic. He disseminates these photos online (dark web) amongst a network of pedophiles. Neither the children nor the parents have any knowledge of this, and it never gets back to them at any future stage. Still a crime, right?

I think I would have to say no, it shouldn't be. Same as it shouldn't be a crime to distribute drawings of pedophilia or stories about pedophilia. No victim, no crime.

Apparently it was YOU who said that distributing "drawings of pedophilia" "shouldn't be a crime."

Go fuck yourself, imbecile.

 

[sideshowbob]

I am asking for an offense which might at present incur a penalty and where the penalty could be different if the principle of "actual harm caused" would be taken into consideration.

Somebody gave an example in this thread of a woman who was prosecuted for having relatively innocent images of her own children. Was there any actual harm caused? How was it really any different from the example of Cupid? Why should it be treated differently?

 

[sideshowbob]

Apparently it was YOU who said that distributing "drawings of pedophilia" "shouldn't be a crime."

And nobody has addressed that issue. Instead of working so hard to make empty accusations, why don't you actually THINK about the issue? Your brain isn't just there to keep your ears from rubbing together.

Who is harmed by drawings? Is a drawing of pedophilia worse than a drawing of torture or murder? Think.

 

[parmalee]

And nobody has addressed that issue. Instead of working so hard to make empty accusations, why don't you actually THINK about the issue? Your brain isn't just there to keep your ears from rubbing together.

Who is harmed by drawings? Is a drawing of pedophilia worse than a drawing of torture or murder? Think.

Nope. Several posters have addressed the issue--read the damn thread. And how is an accurate assessment of what YOU explicitly stated--"it shouldn't be a crime to distribute drawings of pedophilia or stories about pedophilia. No victim, no crime."--an "empty accusation?"

 

[sideshowbob]

duplicate

 

[sideshowbob]

And how is an accurate assessment of what YOU explicitly stated--"it shouldn't be a crime to distribute drawings of pedophilia or stories about pedophilia. No victim, no crime."--an "empty accusation?"

The empty accusation would be calling me an "imbecile".

If you think there should be crimes without victims, tell us why.

 

[geordief]

Somebody gave an example in this thread of a woman who was prosecuted for having relatively innocent images of her own children. Was there any actual harm caused? How was it really any different from the example of Cupid? Why should it be treated differently?

I don't know all the real details of that case and so I can't say.

But do you think it should have been possible for her (or someone in a very similar position) to have claimed that even if (just hypothetically) she had shared those photos and/or paintings of her children with other people that she had not "vetted ,then her punishment should be less if it could be shown that her children had not suffered in any way from her actions?

 

[pjdude1219]

Nope. Several posters have addressed the issue--read the damn thread. And how is an accurate assessment of what YOU explicitly stated--"it shouldn't be a crime to distribute drawings of pedophilia or stories about pedophilia. No victim, no crime."--an "empty accusation?"

your dealing with someone who is pathological in nature. he has flat out said he views people concerns about him as inherently unreasonable simply because they disagree with him. he is incapable of understanding how he comes across and frankly doesn't care. your not going to get anywhere. you disagree with him therefore your view point has no value

 

[parmalee]

your dealing with someone who is pathological in nature. he has flat out said he views people concerns about him as inherently unreasonable simply because they disagree with him. he is incapable of understanding how he comes across and frankly doesn't care. your not going to get anywhere. you disagree with him therefore your view point has no value

He apparently doesn't even know whether or not he agrees with himself. Either that, or he doesn't even seem capable of comprehending his own words. (Hence: calling him an "imbecile" is by no means an "empty accusation.")

 

[pjdude1219]

He apparently doesn't even know whether or not he agrees with himself. Either that, or he doesn't even seem capable of comprehending his own words. (Hence: calling him an "imbecile" is by no means an "empty accusation.")

your guess is as good as mine. he also seems to feel reminding of the connotations and implications of his statements is unfair. but its an important part of how we communicate. I can't tell if he is just a troll or just kinda of dim. As him going on about he is being falsely accused of being a pedophile you'll note no one has actualy said he is just that given his actions he comes across that way. he just seems out of it.

 

[parmalee]

Somebody gave an example in this thread of a woman who was prosecuted for having relatively innocent images of her own children. Was there any actual harm caused? How was it really any different from the example of Cupid? Why should it be treated differently?

Yo, imbecile: the example cited was an injustice--in most jurisdictions such would not be a crime, just as the photography of Sally Mann is not illicit, nor are issues of National Geographic.

Are you capable of following anything? Are you capable of doing even a modicum of research? Can you use Google?

In the U.S., a July 2014 criminal case decision in Massachusetts, Commonwealth v. Rex, 469 Mass. 36 (2014),[88] made a legal determination of what was not to be considered "pornography" and in this particular case "child pornography".[89] It was determined that photographs of naked children that were from sources such as National Geographic magazine, a sociology textbook, and a nudist catalog were not considered pornography in Massachusetts even while in the possession of a convicted and (at the time) incarcerated sex offender.[89]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

 

[Quantum Quack]

sideshowbob
When they diddle a kid in their heads, drawing an imaginary image of a child being abused, does the child thank them afterwards ( in their head) and when they imagine that same child as an adult what do they think his/her imaginary reaction to their imaginary abuse would manifest ( in your head). Are they haunted by "children past"? Do they also draw imaginary pictures of dead children?
There is no crime because it is all imaginary.
Being mentally ill is not a crime.
However once you materially draw an image of child abuse and keep that image you are guilty of a crime and provided material evidence of your mental health. Depending on jurisdiction you could be institutionalized or locked up in other containment places.

The issue is about self abuse, self harm and how it has been proven to potentially lead to the abuse of others.
It is about society protecting itself from those persons with serious mental health issues.

 

[iceaura]

If you think there should be crimes without victims, tell us why.

Because threats often have no victims. Likewise conspiracies, plots, etc.

Again: storing dynamite nobody knows about in a city garage. It's a crime. A victimless crime.
Do you agree that it should be a crime?

 

[James R]

Moderator note:

Clearly, one interpretation that can be placed on sideshowbob's posts in this thread is that he is advocating the legalisation of child pornography (at least of one particular type).

Specifically, sideshowbob has stated that " ... it shouldn't be a crime to distribute drawings of pedophilia or stories about pedophilia." Moreover, he has stated that it should not be illegal in certain circumstances to knowingly distribute photos of real naked children to pedophiles.

We do not want sciforums used as a tool to promote harmful acts against children, or as some kind of meeting place for closet pedophiles.

This thread is now closed pending a moderator review of the situation. Among other things, we will need to decide whether sideshowbob is the kind of member we want to have here.

 

[James R]

Update: We have reviewed this thread and have decided that it is best that it remains closed.

No further action will be taken at this time. However, let me clearly state that identifiable pedophiles are not tolerated on sciforums, and we condemn the abuse of children in any form. We will carefully investigate any posts that are apparently condoning or promoting such abuse, and members are urged to report any such posts.