I’m not defending the above justification the judge used, I’m merely tired of people discussing these real, serious issues by labeling their opponents kiddy rapists in order to win an argument. It’s disgusting, appalling, and shows a serious lack of objectivity.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM

Amen. It’s just as disgusting an inexcusable a tactic as when the looney left labels (or “merely” insinuates) their opponents “racists”.

“Racist! Racist!”

Thanks for staying on this one, MadisonConservative.

a capella on April 16, 2008 at 7:31 PM

I don’t get how you’re figuring that supply creates demand. The US Congress creates gazillions of pounds of BS each session, and I don’t see anyone saying “thank you sir, may I have another?”

And, just to make this really clear — how would photoshopped or CGI’d “child porn” involve sexual exploitation of actual, real children rather than “children” as a concept?

Just to throw some further gasoline on the discussion, what if the age of consent in the jurisdiction where the activities were filmed were lower than the age of consent in the US jurisdiction where the film was viewed? Note here that the age of consent in — oh, let’s pick on Spain — is 13. Under the laws of the locality, “children” weren’t exploited. How, then, can it be justified to say that “harming children” is the reason for the law in the US?

Let’s make it really fun — let’s say that the film was made of Spanish 14-year-olds, subtitled in Chinese and sold on the mainland to 3 million interested Chinese consumers. What additional harm to these non-children would be done by one US pervert picking up the DVD on a business trip and hauling it to Omaha?

Same conclusion: It seems to me that there can be many good reasons for a public policy penalizing possession or distribution of child porn, but the reasoning underlying such policies is suspect when based on a knee-jerk “harming children” argument.

lexa on April 16, 2008 at 6:49 PM

Ah. More typical reasoned, logical debate.

It seems to me that there can be many good reasons for a public policy penalizing possession or distribution of child porn, but the reasoning underlying such policies is suspect when based on a knee-jerk “harming children” argument.

cthulhu on April 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM

What other reasons could there be for a public policy penalizing possession or distribution, if not to protect children? It creates demand, just as does the use of illegal drugs. In order for supply to meet demand, children must be exploited. Consumers drive the wheel in both cases but they don’t like to think of themselves as being responsible for the problem. This isn’t an issue of someone being able to be offensive just because it is their right. I can easily ignore the free speech offerings that offend me. Sexual exploitation of children isn’t ignored quite as easily.

If you are looking for moral culpability you can reasonably argue that a picture of a 17-year-old and a picture of a 9-year-old are the same. But if you are looking at the pathology and the likelyhood of another offense after release, the reports I’ve read are that they are very different cases.

Without more information, I can’t condemn the judge for anything. Even the requirement to take care of the animals is a humane footnote, not a real part of the sentence.

Boy was I surprised…

The rot is deep and highly resistant to common fugicides… time to pull the DDT out of mothballs and spray until the state is dripping wet…

But, while skin-crawlingly pervy, it’s hard to see what someone with such pictures on a hard drive is doing to harm the kids involved. Encouragement of the original felons? Providing financial assistance to the original felons?

It’s an interesting question. Certainly if they’re paying for the material they’re encouraging its creation, but I don’t know if people actually pay for internet porn of this or any other variety (I know legal porn is available for sale on the internet, but there’s also vast amounts of free content). I suppose there are other ways you could encourage the production–like trading for it, or even just asking for it.

But if it were to turn out that a possessor was in no conceivable way creating demand, and wasn’t distributing material himself, I suppose the argument then would be that there’s a psychological slippery slope–that those who possess such pornography will eventually degenerate to the stage where they’ll directly harm children themselves. But I don’t know if there’s any evidence for that argument, any more than there’s evidence that people interested in any kind of fetishistic porn (like simulated rape or S&M porn, both of which are out there) would ever personally want to actually engage in the activities depicted.

I guess when it comes to certain dangers society just doesn’t want to take its chances. Which in this case is certainly understandable.

Clearly, someone who would involve children in pornographic situations is directly harming them. But, while skin-crawlingly pervy, it’s hard to see what someone with such pictures on a hard drive is doing to harm the kids involved. Encouragement of the original felons? Providing financial assistance to the original felons? This leads to odd quirks — does an Eyewitness News report encourage bank robberies by virtue of distributing images for profit? Would a financial backer who never had possession of the images be more or less liable for financial support than a purchaser of a single copy?

More mainstream porn has been fighting the “does porn increase bad behavior” debate for years, and I haven’t seen anything definitive there either way.

Finally, when you add in photoshops and CGI, you end up in a looking-glass world where penalties, based on “harming children” don’t involve any actual children.

It seems to me that there can be many good reasons for a public policy penalizing possession or distribution of child porn, but the reasoning underlying such policies is suspect when based on a knee-jerk “harming children” argument.

I’m not emotional. If I were, I’d be accusing others of being in favor of child porn. Savvy yet?

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Strawman. Jay Haw indicated concern that many of our freedoms were being eroded using the excuse of “protecting the children”. In this particular case, child porn was the issue. I concluded that given a choice between the two, he would rather have porn, including that involving children, go unregulated. The fact he was referring to child porn was implicit in his rant about “protecting the children.” And, I’ve never looked at George Carlin as a role model.

IS it hard core Porn? showing sex acts with kids?

Or is it Naked pictures of kids, which are also considered Porn?

And does the law make any distinction?

I’ve done internet content searches of a LOT of sites working for various companies… and there is a LOT of material out there, especialy from other countries, which is not well labeled.

It could be hard core… it could be soft… it could be kids… when you click on a site you really have no way of telling.

Problem is that it stays in your cache, and can be recovered. Even DELETING a downloaded picture does not really get rid of it… and it can be recovered.

a capella on April 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM

I’m not emotional. If I were, I’d be accusing others of being in favor of child porn. Savvy yet?

a capella on April 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM

You referred, earlier, specifically to the porn industry, not the child porn industry.

Hence, if you were making your argument, one could reasonably speculate that your grievance is with pornography itself, and not the subject of that porn.

This is the crux of my point. It’s pointless to try to discuss this with a large part of the populace because they hear “child”, “underage”, or any other synonym of the two and they immediately let their emotions take over rather than discuss the topic rationally, leading to accusations, smearing, and eventually breakdown of any coherent conversation.

I’ve lost my taste for George Carlin, but I think he nailed it when he said America has a child fetish.

There’s no ‘child porn’ in your statement…just ‘porn.’

James on April 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Ah, I see why he’s all emotional. Let me amend that to “child porn” Thank you. Didn’t mean to interfere with America’s favorite pastime..

Don’t try to slide off into the general porn argument. It isn’t relevant.

a capella on April 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM

He was asking you if you were sliding off into the general porn argument, because:

Whatever his motives, one can certainly draw the conclusion he isn’t opposed to the porn industry.

a capella on April 16, 2008 at 10:40 AM

There’s no ‘child porn’ in your statement…just ‘porn.’

I’m almost convinced that these Judges look at child porn themselves.

I thought I was the only one who felt that way.
I’ve always contended, the reason some judges give light or no sentences to child molestors is because they molest or want to themselves.
But that’s just me.

Again, slander. You are making the assertion that he has an affinity for child porn, and that is insulting. Corral your emotions on the topic if they take you to this level. Oh, and…

I didn’t slander anyone. It is simply that Jay Haw indicates he prefers the existence and distribution of child porn to the restriction of the freedom to do that. I’m not a bit emotional about it. You already admitted you didn’t understand what he meant. You shouldn’t get upset because I did understand him.

Absolutely wrong. If you are against pornography in all its forms, then it’s fair to say that your position on this topic is differently based than the average person here. If you want to play by the rules of “That must mean you like/want”, then do so. Don’t play double standards.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM

I didn’t know how the average HA poster felt about child porn. Are you telling me they are all in favor of it? Don’t try to slide off into the general porn argument. It isn’t relevant. Jay Haw’s comment was aimed specifically at restricting freedoms to “protect the children.” Child porn is the issue here.

“You can take that on an emergency basis to the 8th Circuit [Court of Appeals] if you like,” he said.

Man, I love judges like this. I’d love to be there and say, “You know what, your Honor? We’re gonna get your a$$ reversed so fast it’ll make your head spin. Because I’m a lawyer and everyone in my law office is a lawyer and probably half the people in this courtroom are lawyers.”

Unfortunately, the reality doesn’t always live up to the dream.

I agree with punishing Child Molestors, but “protecting children” has been the excuse for more destruction of our constitutional rights than any others.

JayHaw Phrenzie on April 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Just curious but are you as opposed to giving up our constitutional rights to “protect us from terrorism” as you are to giving them up to “protect the children?”

I think it is fair to assume he prefers child porn to restriction of the freedom to allow it’s use.

a capella on April 16, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Again, slander. You are making the assertion that he has an affinity for child porn, and that is insulting. Corral your emotions on the topic if they take you to this level. Oh, and…

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM

You’re misunderstanding a capella’s statement and falsely accusing him of slander. He’s not saying that jay haw personally partakes in child pornography, he’s saying that jay haw is ok with the fact that child porn exists so that none of his rights are infringed upon. What other conclusion can you draw from a statement like this:

And how many rights should we give up in the name of your children?

I agree with punishing Child Molestors, but “protecting children” has been the excuse for more destruction of our constitutional rights than any others.

Please protect your children w/o turning our country into a Police State. K, tks.

JayHaw Phrenzie on April 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM

I think it is fair to assume he prefers child porn to restriction of the freedom to allow it’s use.

a capella on April 16, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Again, slander. You are making the assertion that he has an affinity for child porn, and that is insulting. Corral your emotions on the topic if they take you to this level. Oh, and…

Got nothing to do with with what I’m against.

Absolutely wrong. If you are against pornography in all its forms, then it’s fair to say that your position on this topic is differently based than the average person here. If you want to play by the rules of “That must mean you like/want”, then do so. Don’t play double standards.

Is that a typo, or are you against all porn?

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Got nothing to do with with what I’m against. It has to do with your comment that serious commentary is negated by personal attacks on those who advocate distribution of material which plays some part in many sexual crimes. Jay Haw’s rant indicated he equates penalizing child porn distributors with an attempt to create a police state. I think it is fair to assume he prefers child porn to restriction of the freedom to allow it’s use.

The real argument about this case is whether possession should hold as much of a penalty as production. In my opinion it should not. Is there not a much harsher penalty for the people who produce/sell drugs than for the possessors?