Inquisition 21
 |
 |
|
|
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
| Search Articles
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments
|
|
|
You don't have to,
but if you log in,
you can add comments.
|
| Page Referral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The age of consent
|
|
|
|
The question central to our sexual absolutism
A question of intent
An American woman’s viewpoint
By Carolyn, the Executive Director of SOhopeful International, Inc.
I have been thinking and something occurs to me about child porn and investigations about people who view it here in the US.
Starting from the poor slob who downloads an image that is a slightly underage 'model' [i.e., 16-17, obviously post-pubescent], if he has gotten it from a website that advertises its models are over 18, his intent is not viewing young children, but legal, 'of-age' adult models.
Most people who view porn online are not so anal-retentive as to put each image in separate folders so they can keep track of which site they got it from; it's more likely to be in one or several folders, if that. There is therefore no way a person accused would be able to say with any certainty where any particular image came from if they were looking at multiple sites, or if they got it through a newsgroup. [We (SOhopeful) have a few members who received images of underage models from a newsgroup that was supposed to be for adult porn only]
Most computer repair places now actively work with law enforcement to turn in anyone who has child porn on their computer. Nice so far. Until one considers that every computer that is brought in for repairs is now automatically scanned, as a courtesy for law enforcement, regardless if it is 90 year old Aunt Fanny's or yours. If there are any images that appear in their subjective assessment to be of an individual who is underage [18 years old], the owner of the computer is automatically turned in to law enforcement. Police then investigate the images and may decide to forward the case to the FBI, who can check the images against their massive database of child pornography.
The issue of subjective assessment is important. I'm not talking about images of 5, 8, or 10 year olds; I'm specifically talking about those models that are physically mature, post-pubescent and not easily distinguishable from an 18 year old. Personally, although in my 30s, I do not look like I am 30- I still get carded for smokes! But I know 12 year olds who are physically mature, wear lots of makeup and dress [in the current trend] like tarts, and one would not be able to tell they are 12-14. My point is that subjectively, a photo of myself might get someone thrown in the slammer if a computer repair technician 'decided' that I am underage. No, there aren't images of me out there, I'm just making my point with what I know best - me. Subjective assessment is a ridiculous means of determining if a model is 18 or 17 or 16! My step-son is underage and can purchase alcohol because he subjectively looks 21.
Ok, here's the question: if the person who owns the computer is legally liable for owning/viewing child pornography [in court they are accused of victimizing the model merely by looking at the photo, whether the owner intended to have CP or not], what is the difference between the computer owner, the computer repair technician, local law enforcement and the FBI agent? If they all have observed a particular photograph of the underage model, are they all not 'victimizing' the model?
It seems to me that the only distinction, besides is being originally on the computer, is the INTENT of those looking at the image. But according to the law, intent is not relevant [as I know from a member in the UK who is an SO (sex offender) for getting zipped files off of Kazaa that were supposed to be pirated programs, turned out that they were CP - it didn't matter that he didn't want that, by law, since their remnants were still on his computer - after opening one zip file, he deleted everything- he was liable just as if he was a rabid CP fanatic] only possession/consumption is important.
So - why are not the computer technician, local law enforcement and/or FBI equally liable for victimizing the model? They have all viewed the image, thus re-victimizing the poor model over and over again! The only distinction is their intent - but again, that is merely a subjective assertion: totally unprovable, totally irrefutable. They must be given some sort of immunity from prosecution, an absolution for their transgression, and a moratorium on her/his (the model's) victimization?
On the subject of unprovable, irrefutable - here in CA one can be deemed a "mentally disordered sex offender" without ever having committed a sex crime! All the state has to do is assert that you 'might' in the future commit a sex crime... again, purely subjective assertion - irrefutable! Also, touching a child on ANY part of their body [non-intimate, through clothes, including a hat] is considered child molestation - all the state has to allege is that it was done to 'gratify the lust' of the person - again, purely subjective assertion!! We are getting into the realm of the Minority Report. Scary stuff.
Anyway, I would like to know your thoughts on this particular issue of subjective assessment if you have time.
Carolyn
Executive Director
SOhopeful International, Inc. Previous Page
The age of consent
The women victims of the sex witch hunts
Grotesque eleven year sentence
A question of intent
Meet an American teenage sex monster
"It was awesome!" A child sex abuse case for salivating over.
 |
|
|
