Net blamed for Rise in Child Porn

[Evergreen]

Child porn crimes have rised by 1,500% since 1988

I don't know about you but I'm pretty willing to say a rise in Pedophiles is to blame for the rise in Child porn.

Also perhaps a rise in children could be blamed, bad parents, Degradation of society, weaker law enforcement of late etc etc

Anyone else find it churlish that the net is getting frequently blamed for society's problems and crimes?

[Lupin]

i just think that the i-net reflects problems of individuals and/or a grooup of ppl.

[SYMM]

hmm....it seems a bit like blaming an increase in roads for worse pollution

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by SYMM

hmm....it seems a bit like blaming an increase in roads for worse pollution

Agreed.

[Nodrog]

I'm not convinced that "child porn crime" even constitutes a meaningful term - it seems to group together crimes-by-definiton such as "looking at pictures of which the state disapproves", with 'physical' crimes such as the actual molestation of children. Obviously the emergence of a medium which makes information dissemination easier might cause an increase in crimes of the first sort, but does it really matter?


Also:

"A paedophile is somebody who sexually abuses children," said Mr Carr.

"Anybody who looks at child pornography on the internet is an abuser by proxy."

lolling

[Quazi Starbucks]

does that mean that if muslim looks at a movie of a man having sex with a woman he has lost his virginity by proxy?

[Nusselt]

im waiting for the mail to print a headline blaming illegal immigrants for the rise in paedophiles

but on a serious note to what extent is this a case of the 'powers that be' simply being more aware of the problem than in the past? maybe theres a finite number of kiddy fiddlers in society at any one time, all that could have happened is that those that never got the chance to see kiddys being fiddled now have the oppurtunity i dont have any evidence for this but just as i dont think the world has suddenly gone gay* with everyone coming out of the closet i similarly dont think that dace's kind have suddenly increased in number. They were always there but in the closet (with the kids) so to speak, we're just more aware of it now.

Infact they should be greatful since it appears that most of the people charged werent 'hands on' offenders (i find the term 'hands on' paedophile lol funny for some reason) but were accessing websites, so you could say the internet has allowed the tracking down of potential daces. Just more stranger danger for the tabloids to wank over.

* comparison of gay people and paedophiles not meant to offend

[ChubbyChecker]

Thanks to the internet it is now a lot easier for dirty old pervs to get access to kids. Also it is a lot easier to get pictures of kiddies, all you need is access to google and you're away.

Seeing you people deny that this will lead to increased peadophilic activity is like watching those crazy Christians defending their Bible

[Muha]

mmm child porn

anyways, why dont they blame the people that TAKE the pictures

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Thanks to the internet it is now a lot easier for dirty old pervs to get access to kids. Also it is a lot easier to get pictures of kiddies, all you need is access to google and you're away.

Seeing you people deny that this will lead to increased peadophilic activity is like watching those crazy Christians defending their Bible

To what extent has the number of incidents of child molestation increased over the last 10 years?

[pablissimo]

The charity fears new third generation 3G phones, with video streaming, will lead to even more offences because they are in some ways even more anonymous.

That's potential for up to four more people downloading child porn then.

[MrPeach]

The internet is to blame for the rise in child porn.

We all use the internet, and make up the internet.

Therefore by proxy we* are paedophiles.












Dace.

[Nodrog]

I actually missed this the first time I read the article.

The charity says 549 child porn offenders were charged or cautioned in 2001, compared with only 35 in 1988.

SOARING CHILD PORN OFFENCES
1988: 35 cautioned or charged
2001: 549 cautioned or charged (1,500% increase)
Since 1988, 3,022 people in total cautioned or prosecuted
Source: NCH

...

But Ray Wyre, a sexual crime consultant who has treated offenders, said the problem may have been worse in the past than society had realised.

"Before 1988 child pornography, the possession of it, was not an offence," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.












The charity says 549 child porn offenders were charged or cautioned in 2001, compared with only 35 in 1988.

"Before 1988 child pornography, the possession of it, was not an offence," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Before 1988 child pornography, the possession of it, was not an offence," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Before 1988 child pornography, the possession of it, was not an offence," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Before 1988 child pornography, the possession of it, was not an offence," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

[MrPeach]

Why did you read the article more than once?

A matter that is close to the heart?

[MrL_JaKiri]

The internet is responsible for the rise of offences, but blaming an information dissemination medium for the dissemination of information is pretty stupid.

In fact, the internet is good, because it catches people who may otherwise have gone unnoticed, and therefore removes the possibility for future crime.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The internet is responsible for the rise of offences,

source?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

source?

Responsible in the sense that they got the images off the internet.

[MrL_JaKiri]

As a comparison, it's like saying that more people will use drugs if drugs are more widely available.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

As has been said earlier in this thread, I think it's down to the fact that the internet makes it far easier for people to communicate with other people, which is why it appears that paedophiles are on the increase, when in fact they probably aren't. I'm willing to bet that the apparant increase in paedophiles closely matches the increase in popularity of the internet over the last 15 years.

It's not the internet - it's society in general.

As an aside, have a look through some history, and see how many Popes, Kings, Queens, Leaders and 'famous' people had a predilection for young children; also, child prostitues over the last few centurys, as well as men marrying rather young 'ladies'.

It's not the internet - it is merely a conduit.

[Proteus]

Saying "paedophiles are child abusers by proxy" seems to me rather like saying "drug addicts are murderers by proxy because Colombian drug lords murder people".

I'd also prefer paedophiles to be looking at pictures of children than kidnapping and murdering them.

[madi]

its just in the news a lot now
has always gone on
when its in the news people react and so the police are told to investigate/arrest more

there was a teacher in my primary school that used to feel up the little boys
that was 20 years ago

[Vermillion]

It seems to me that the statistics cited do not show that there has been an increase in child pornography, but rather that there has been an increase in charges laid in child pornography.

The logical link here would appear to be: More pedophiles are posting on the internet, rather than keeping pictures at home in their darkrroms. Thus, pedophiles are much easier to locate now then they were before the internet, thus far more charges are being laid and pedophiles arrested because of the internet.

Ergo: The internet has led to a decrease in child pornography.

[SYMM]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

im waiting for the mail to print a headline blaming illegal immigrants for the rise in paedophiles

Nah, rise in house-prices is quite obviously the reason

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3387377.stm]
Anyone else find it churlish that the net is getting frequently blamed for society's problems and crimes?

Er... no, in this case I find it perfectly valid.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Er... no, in this case I find it perfectly valid.

Read the thread to find out why you're wrong!

[Leshy]

"Anybody who looks at child pornography on the internet is an abuser by proxy."

I'm a ****ing porn star by proxy

[Inferno]

I bet anyone a million quid that paedophillia will be legal in the next 50 years.




Terms and Conditions:
1. If I am dead, no claims can be made.
2. This bet is void if there is a serious change in government.

[Dante Hicks]

Paedophilia is already legal, for god's sake.

[Inferno]

I meant it will be as accepted as homosexuality.........Is that accepted now? I was in a cave since March 2003.

[Dante Hicks]

Apart from the odd gay being beaten up, laws against Gay marriage, laws against the promotion of homosexuality, and general bigotry, I guess so yeah.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Apart from the odd gay being beaten up, laws against Gay marriage, laws against the promotion of homosexuality, and general bigotry, I guess so yeah.

Society Against Faggots Everywhere.


SAFE.





I'm actually going to submit that to a christian fundamentalist site now

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

laws against the promotion of homosexuality

if you mean section 28, im pretty sure they got rid of it in november*







*or got the repeal through both houses or soemthing, feh, i dunno

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

if you mean section 28, im pretty sure they got rid of it in november*

Yeah, you're quite right, kudos : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3120924.stm

Shows how little I pay attention these days.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Shows how little I pay attention these days.

no, just shows how right wing the media is that this wasnt treated as a big news story and a victory for rational people everywhere

[ParraCida]

Is this like saying the highway causes car accidents?

[Baron Morte]

I blame the bunch of bullies in school that cause severe trauma and lack of confidence in many men to be the ones to burn.

Or just shutdown the internet.... see if i care.

[Inferno]

Who cares if the Net is responsible for a rise in child porn? It is responsible for an increase in porn in general and people like me who post psychotic posts.

[AllFather|away]

Im quite sure its a fact, just look at Dace.

[Kurashima]

Personal Opinion : The number of Paedophiles worldwide hasnt changed or increased significantly, theyve simply found a new medium to exchange their images which has been sensationalised, and is ultimately less secure than going round to someones house with a brown envelope, hence theyre being caught more often.

How many Paedophiles are arrested now in Thailand , Singapore , and the far eastern countries where the majority of the stuff comes from? I have a feeling the increase isnt huge unless the government of the time has made a statement on tracking down Paedo's.

I note the number of WESTERN paedophiles being caught out there has increased, but thats to be expected when theres a crackdown on sex tourism.

The scum who have been doing it for decades in little huts in the mountains with children bought from drug addict parents, will never be stopped , never be caught. Their clients will be caught more, but i genuinely dont think its possible to re-educate someone who finds having sex with, or abusing children, to be erotic.

Castration. Remove the urge entirely.

[acropolis]

these are all US perspective.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm not convinced that "child porn crime" even constitutes a meaningful term - it seems to group together crimes-by-definiton such as "looking at pictures of which the state disapproves", with 'physical' crimes such as the actual molestation of children. Obviously the emergence of a medium which makes information dissemination easier might cause an increase in crimes of the first sort, but does it really matter?

our supreme court struck down laws against child porn that is created by computer graphics or whatnot.

the implication is that for us, it is the abuse of the children that is wrong, not the sexual attraction toward children. boy does that piss off the right.

Originally Posted by Proteus

Saying "paedophiles are child abusers by proxy" seems to me rather like saying "drug addicts are murderers by proxy because Colombian drug lords murder people".

I'd also prefer paedophiles to be looking at pictures of children than kidnapping and murdering them.

as part of the war on drugs, the US government did a big series of commercials stating that drug buyers are murderers by proxy because colombian drug lords have ties to terrorist groups.

not sure if you were referring to that, or that statistically speaking any bad idea you can think of has already been put into effect by our guv'ment lately.

some lefty types responded with commercials saying that SUV drivers were murderers by proxy because the gas money went to saudis who had ties to terrorists.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Apart from the odd gay being beaten up, laws against Gay marriage, laws against the promotion of homosexuality, and general bigotry, I guess so yeah.

our state department recently freaked out when someone implied that the US was in favor of tolerating faggots.

good think that was quickly cleared up.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by acropolis

these are all US perspective.
our supreme court struck down laws against child porn that is created by computer graphics or whatnot.

the implication is that for us, it is the abuse of the children that is wrong, not the sexual attraction toward children. boy does that piss off the right.
as part of the war on drugs, the US government did a big series of commercials stating that drug buyers are murderers by proxy because colombian drug lords have ties to terrorist groups.

not sure if you were referring to that, or that statistically speaking any bad idea you can think of has already been put into effect by our guv'ment lately.

some lefty types responded with commercials saying that SUV drivers were murderers by proxy because the gas money went to saudis who had ties to terrorists.
our state department recently freaked out when someone implied that the US was in favor of tolerating faggots.

good think that was quickly cleared up.

WHAAA?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

these are all US perspective.
our supreme court struck down laws against child porn that is created by computer graphics or whatnot.

I may be wrong, but he might be being more radical than that.

If we are saying that looking at e-gen-child porn (electronically generated that is) is not a bad thing (or at least, not criminal), why should we bother spending time trying to stop people looking at real child porn?

Surely the damage has been done once the photo's / abuse has been taken place? Sure, if I had grown up being abused then I wouldn't like to think there were photo's floating around of me, but it's not like the police could ever stop it (in electronic form I mean).

The production of such material could be made illegal (smash their heads in, etc) without having to make the distribution / posession of such material criminal. This has some difficult issues around it.

Since someone is bound to reply with the obvious : "Hey, but if you allow the distribution of such material then you are just creating a market which will be satisfied by somebody!" - I'll merely say that it's a possibility, but is there any direct evidence on how most child porn is created? Is it created by commercial operations or by amateurs abusing their family members (etc)? I've no idea tbh. It seems most people who make this kind of stuff would probably be abusing children even if there wasn't a buck to be made.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Since someone is bound to reply with the obvious : "Hey, but if you allow the distribution of such material then you are just creating a market which will be satisfied by somebody!" - I'll merely say that it's a possibility, but is there any direct evidence on how most child porn is created? Is it created by commercial operations or by amateurs abusing their family members (etc)? I've no idea tbh. It seems most people who make this kind of stuff would probably be abusing children even if there wasn't a buck to be made.

It's debateable whether making ECP (as it were) less illegal would create a market, but frankly, I don't think it matters what conclusion is come to (boom boom). It's the potential that the law should deal with, thereby eliminating a potential problem with the loss of bugger all associated rights.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's the potential that the law should deal with, thereby eliminating a potential problem with the loss of bugger all associated rights.

I don't understand. Potential for what?

I can't see electronically generated child porn (or animated child porn for that matter) being made illegal to posses in any sane justice system - it doesn't make any sense (since there's no harm being done to anyone).

Real-porn is more difficult, but I'm edging towards legalisation of at least posession.

p.s. On the "creating a market" thing, I was talking about real child porn - videos, photos of real kids, etc.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't understand. Potential for what?

I can't see electronically generated child porn (or animated child porn for that matter) being made illegal to posses in any sane justice system - it doesn't make any sense (since there's no harm being done to anyone).

Real-porn is more difficult, but I'm edging towards legalisation of at least posession.

p.s. On the "creating a market" thing, I was talking about real child porn - videos, photos of real kids, etc.

I don't see why ECG isn't going to create a market, either. Admittedly, there may be some who don't want their CC tied into this kind of thing, but companies like that usually lie on the statements anyway.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't see why ECG isn't going to create a market, either.

Well, with electronically generated porn, it wouldn't matter if there was a market for it or not.

People looking at pictures of children is not wrong (well, not criminally wrong anyway). It's the children being abused which is the problem. The problem with current child porn (i.e. the real sort) is that any picture you'll see is a real-life instance of abuse (well, except banal cases like innocent holiday snaps, etc). Even if a child isn't hurt then you can still argue their privacy has been invaded, etc, etc.

Anyway. CGI child porn wouldn't have that problem as there would be no victim.

Unless we can strongly prove that the former act (looking) leads to the latter (abuse) I don't see how we can justifiably make such laws banning stuff, etc.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Oh right, sorry, misread.

Although the potential for abuse still remains (lol slippery slope) by people moving onto the real thing.

[queball]

'Lo page 2.

So this thread isn't about an actual net?

[Dante Hicks]

I hate you for making me laugh at such a stupid post queball.

edit : That's the nearest you'll get to a simple "LOL" reply from me.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by queball

'Lo page 2.

So this thread isn't about an actual net?

It was the pit I dug that actually did the business, the net was just there to stop preemptive unnecessary bruising.