NationStates Jolt Archive

Sex Offenders Could Be Banned From Net





One state lawmaker wants to ban some sexual predators from the Internet.

Trenton, NJ -- Should a person convicted of using the Internet to commit a sex crime lose the ability to use the Internet without supervision?

It might be possible, if a New Jersey lawmaker gets his way.

State Senate President Richard Codey is pushing legislation to keep those convicted of using the Internet to commit a sex crime from further using the Web to exploit kids.

His proposal would keep those convicted of an Internet sex crime from logging onto the Net only with a court order.
This should be the link (http://www.davesdaily.com/out.php?id=16783&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wfmy.com%2Fnews%2Fwatercooler%2Farticle.aspx%3Fstoryid%3D63645)

Interesting Idea, I think. It would stop the predators from gaining access to kiddie porn and what not online. Your thoughts?

I don't know why...but this doesn't seem like a "humane" punishment. They should be monitored, absolutely, but they should not be banned. In today's world it would be like isolating them.

I don't know why...but this doesn't seem like a "humane" punishment. They should be monitored, absolutely, but they should not be banned. In today's world it would be like isolating them.


Right, because without the internet they have no life? Well does that mean we should provide the internet to everyone, as to not "isolate" them?

Yes. I have a friend who wasn't even convicted, but was under indictment for hacking. He was not allowed near any computer at all. If you can ban hackers, you shoudl be able to ban sex offenders, too.

When you release someone from prison, you're making a declaration that this person is no longer a danger to society.

If you don't think that a person has been successfully rehabilitated, the DON'T LET THEM OUT!

My God, why is this so hard to understand?

If you believe in the doctrine of rehabilitation, people we release from prison should not be discriminated against in any way. If you don't believe certain people can be rehabilitated, then the death penalty should be employed.

Discriminating against someone after they've served their time only feeds the idea that "the man's out to get me".

(And if you want to stop people from looking at child porn, you should focus your attention on the manufacturers, rather than the people who look at it.)

Right, because without the internet they have no life? Well does that mean we should provide the internet to everyone, as to not "isolate" them?

...I wasn't quite suggesting THAT...

I am just of the opinion that no one should be prohibited access to the internet. However, like I said, a sex offender's browsing could be monitored; certain keywords could be denied, they wouldn't be allowed on forums, etc.

But that is a decision to be made by the parole board and/or state law concerning sex offenders.

...I wasn't quite suggesting THAT...



I know. I like to be irrational at times :D

When you release someone from prison, you're making a declaration that this person is no longer a danger to society.

If you don't think that a person has been successfully rehabilitated, the DON'T LET THEM OUT!

My God, why is this so hard to understand?

If you believe in the doctrine of rehabilitation, people we release from prison should not be discriminated against in any way. If you don't believe certain people can be rehabilitated, then the death penalty should be employed.

Discriminating against someone after they've served their time only feeds the idea that "the man's out to get me".

(And if you want to stop people from looking at child porn, you should focus your attention on the manufacturers, rather than the people who look at it.)

Good point, but our leaders are far too spineless to execute even the lowest of scum.

Well, they deserve to DIE. Doing that would be letting them off easy, so I wouldn't complain one bit.

Good point, but our leaders are far too spineless to execute even the lowest of scum.
Then they should employ life sentences.

Placing restrictions after they let someone out is as good as saying they believe that the person is still a danger. If they believe that, then they have no excuse for letting the person back on the streats, no matter what restrictions you place on them.

This should be the link (http://www.davesdaily.com/out.php?id=16783&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wfmy.com%2Fnews%2Fwatercooler%2Farticle.aspx%3Fstoryid%3D63645)

Interesting Idea, I think. It would stop the predators from gaining access to kiddie porn and what not online. Your thoughts?

No. It ain't gonna fly past the SC. It would get shot down in a heartbeat.

I should add that if this is about them not looking at kiddie porn, parolle boards and enforcers have much better things to do with their time than micromanage what their charges jack off to.

More likely this is to prevent them from using the internet to lure and groom their future victums. I still think that if they have reason to believe that the person will try to do this, they shouldn't have let them out of prison in the first place.

Hey, I am definately not disagreeing with your points, quite to the contrary, but I am pointing out that many are too spineless, misguided, and/or evil to properly enforce justice. If the person is not rehabilitated, don't release them. If they can't be rehabilitated, kill them.

Hey, I am definately not disagreeing with your points, quite to the contrary, but I am pointing out that many are too spineless, misguided, and/or evil to properly enforce justice. If the person is not rehabilitated, don't release them. If they can't be rehabilitated, kill them.
I know you were. I was just trying to provide a softer option for those who lack the stomach to execute the worst of the worst.

good luck enforcing that is all i can say. paedophiles have to be pretty devious to get away with what they want to do in the first place. they won't lose this deviousness once they are caught. if they are determined to reoffend then they will easily find a way around this restriction.

good luck enforcing that is all i can say. paedophiles have to be pretty devious to get away with what they want to do in the first place. they won't lose this deviousness once they are caught. if they are determined to reoffend then they will easily find a way around this restriction.
Kindly replace the term "pedophile" with the term "child molester". While I don't want to derail this thread with the pedophelia debate, I'm going to have to ask that you understand that pedophiles and child molesters are two different groups of people.

Other than that, I agree with you compeletely. It's a waste of effort to try to enforce something like this.

If you have hard evidence that someone is a danger to children, that is a greater danger than the average person on the street, then you should take steps to protect children from harm, including locking the person up rather than just keeping them off the internet. Depending on what a person has done, I think we should try something like a combination of jail combined with reduced sentences for successfully having sex with middle-aged prostitutes.

Depending on what a person has done, I think we should try something like a combination of jail combined with reduced sentences for successfully having sex with middle-aged prostitutes.
That can only be a joke.

Yes. I have a friend who wasn't even convicted, but was under indictment for hacking. He was not allowed near any computer at all. If you can ban hackers, you shoudl be able to ban sex offenders, too.
and not just hackers and Sex offenders.... Scam artists/Con Artists as well as those guilty of Identity theift.

A man in jail has to be taken care by spending government money. So, the governemnt could get a little hasty in releasing some people. Also, the sentence is given (mostly) in relation to the gravity of his actions not to how long it takes for him to repent. A man could understand what he did wrong and feel he shouldn't do it again even before he is put to jail while another could spend his whole life feeling he was justified or it was his right to do what he did.

So, saying that a person should be considered rehabilitated once they get out of prison is incorrect in my oppinion. And knowing what a person thinks of his past or would do once they get out is pretty hard, unless they are at their second or even third offense.

And I don't see why it would be wrong to consider a convict that got out not the same as a person that never got convicted. I mean, in this case, the man actually sexually abused another person. I don't see anything wrong in monitoring him so he doesn't do it again (at least for a while to ensure he actually learned his lesson). And if he weren't going to do it again, that means he understands the gravity of what he's done and will probably understand why he has to still be monitored.

Kindly replace the term "pedophile" with the term "child molester".
is that because there is a difference between someone who watches child porn and someone who makes it? i dont' believe the difference to be that great.

That can only be a joke.

No. Part of the treatment for child molestors is to encourage them to masturbate to fantasies of women their own age. Trouble is, you can never know what they're really masturbating to. If a molestor pays for visits with non jail-bait looking sex workers and demonstrates the ability to have normal sex then that should be a plus for them when it time for their parole hearing.

I would also consider a condition of parole being to have sex at least once a fortnight with a prostitute, but that would probably be too hard to monitor.

is that because there is a difference between someone who watches child porn and someone who makes it? i dont' believe the difference to be that great.

Molesting children is the big bad. That is what needs to be stopped. It's less damaging to have someone fantasize about raping you than to actually be raped. If you force a child to be raped on film that is worse than just watching it.

Molesting children is the big bad. That is what needs to be stopped. It's less damaging to have someone fantasize about raping you than to actually be raped. If you force a child to be raped on film that is worse than just watching it.
The problem is child porn can never be consentual ... by having a demand for it, it is causing harm

is that because there is a difference between someone who watches child porn and someone who makes it? i dont' believe the difference to be that great.
So you're saying you don't see a great difference between people who don't molest children and those who do?
No. Part of the treatment for child molestors is to encourage them to masturbate to fantasies of women their own age. Trouble is, you can never know what they're really masturbating to. If a molestor pays for visits with non jail-bait looking sex workers and demonstrates the ability to have normal sex then that should be a plus for them when it time for their parole hearing.

I would also consider a condition of parole being to have sex at least once a fortnight with a prostitute, but that would probably be too hard to monitor.
This is the most insane suggestion I've ever heard. Tactics like this were tried to "straighten" gays. Such efforts are doomed to failure.
The problem is child porn can never be consentual ... by having a demand for it, it is causing harm
So you're saying that ordinary people who would never think to go out and molest children are going to get into the kiddie porn buisiness because of the money?

So you're saying you don't see a great difference between people who don't molest children and those who do?

This is the most insane suggestion I've ever heard. Tactics like this were tried to "straighten" gays. Such efforts are doomed to failure.

So you're saying that ordinary people who would never think to go out and molest children are going to get into the kiddie porn buisiness because of the money?
No what I was saying that creating a demand for kiddy porn creates an increased production to fill demand.

It is an industry that should be experiencing no growth(as close as we can make it)

The problem is child porn can never be consentual ... by having a demand for it, it is causing harm

Yes, I agree, someone who just pays for kiddie porn is feeding the montsers who make it, but actually molesting a child is the greater crime and should have the greater punishment.

This is the most insane suggestion I've ever heard. Tactics like this were tried to "straighten" gays. Such efforts are doomed to failure.

Insane as doing nothing and then letting them out on parole the next time the jail fills up and they want to make some room in the cells? What about someone who turns up in a pychiatrists office and says they want help with their perverted urges? And the fact that gay men can find consenting adult partners while child molesters cannot tends to make the comparison somewhat invalid in my opinion. A gay can always say to himself, "I'm not harming anyone so why should I change?" while a child molestor cannot.

This should be the link (http://www.davesdaily.com/out.php?id=16783&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wfmy.com%2Fnews%2Fwatercooler%2Farticle.aspx%3Fstoryid%3D63645)

Interesting Idea, I think. It would stop the predators from gaining access to kiddie porn and what not online. Your thoughts?

Yeah, I have one. If they ban sexual predators from using the Internet, MySpace.com would probably soon cease to exist.

Insane as doing nothing and then letting them out on parole the next time the jail fills up and they want to make some room in the cells? What about someone who turns up in a pychiatrists office and says they want help with their perverted urges? And the fact that gay men can find consenting adult partners while child molesters cannot tends to make the comparison somewhat invalid in my opinion. A gay can always say to himself, "I'm not harming anyone so why should I change?" while a child molestor cannot.

That's the problem! The pedophiles that actually feel it's not wrong to follow their urges and become molestors. They don't have conscience problems. And it's not that they can't get consenting adult partners, they just won't, they feel attracted to kids...
And making them do something like going to a prostitute once in a while isn't going to satisfy their sexual desire for kids. Even if they'd do it, they will only do it because you make them. How many times has something imposed to you actually worked?

That's the problem! The pedophiles that actually feel it's not wrong to follow their urges and become molestors. They don't have conscience problems. And it's not that they can't get consenting adult partners, they just won't, they feel attracted to kids...

Is this person locked up forever? Yes? No problem. Are they going to be released at some point? Yes? Then they need to develop a conscience.


And making them do something like going to a prostitute once in a while isn't going to satisfy their sexual desire for kids. Even if they'd do it, they will only do it because you make them. How many times has something imposed to you actually worked?

Well I said that their paying for prostitutes and having normal sex would be a good thing. I didn't say we could force them to do that. If we forced them then we would be rapists ourselves one step removed. But the opportunity should be there for them to learn and practice healthy sexual behaviour.

So you're saying you don't see a great difference between people who don't molest children and those who do?

well no i didn't say that at all. people who search for and use child pornography for their sexual gratification fuel an industry which perpetrates horrible abuses of children. so their actions have an indrect effect and the crime is lesser than actually doing the abusing. their actions are still having a significant effect and it doesn't make them a different sort of person at all. sure they're not all the same and there's some less dangerous than others but that doesn't mean that not all paedofiles are potentially dangerous child molesters.

But the opportunity should be there for them to learn and practice healthy sexual behaviour.

...I have to question whether regularly visiting prostitutes is really a great example of "healthy sexual behavior," on either the emotional or the physical level.

...I have to question whether regularly visiting prostitutes is really a great example of "healthy sexual behavior," on either the emotional or the physical level.

As opposed to what to molesting children? Sure on an emotional level it's not so great, but I'm not sure what you mean by the physical level. I think that female prostitutes are physically the same as non prostitute females. And it's not as if you can say the molesters were having deep and meaningful relationships with their child victims. One step at a time here. Give them the opportunity to get pleasure from normal sex and maybe they will be able to form normal relationships in the future. If not it is still better that they have shallow sex with adults than shallow sex with children.

well no i didn't say that at all. people who search for and use child pornography for their sexual gratification fuel an industry which perpetrates horrible abuses of children. so their actions have an indrect effect and the crime is lesser than actually doing the abusing. their actions are still having a significant effect and it doesn't make them a different sort of person at all. sure they're not all the same and there's some less dangerous than others but that doesn't mean that not all paedofiles are potentially dangerous child molesters.

Um, not all pedophiles are potentially dangerous child molestors. It is entirely possible to feel an attraction without acting upon it. For example, I like fudge. A lot. This does not mean that I am a potential fudge thief, because I am capable of deciding that however much I like fudge, stealing is still wrong. I have no doubt that there exist people who feel a strong sexual attraction towards children, but who do not act upon it because they are aware that to do so would be harmful to those children. These are not bad people. Make sense?

This should be the link (http://www.davesdaily.com/out.php?id=16783&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wfmy.com%2Fnews%2Fwatercooler%2Farticle.aspx%3Fstoryid%3D63645)

Interesting Idea, I think. It would stop the predators from gaining access to kiddie porn and what not online. Your thoughts?


Thatd probably cut down bandwidth use at MySpace by about 25%

Im undecided on this. Im not against it in that nobody needs the internet to survive. On the otherhand it reminds me of gun control in that instead of dealing with the individuals who do wrong it just takes toys away from them and makes them look for other resources. It is a quick and incomplete fix instead of a proper one.

Um, not all pedophiles are potentially dangerous child molestors. It is entirely possible to feel an attraction without acting upon it. For example, I like fudge. A lot. This does not mean that I am a potential fudge thief, because I am capable of deciding that however much I like fudge, stealing is still wrong. I have no doubt that there exist people who feel a strong sexual attraction towards children, but who do not act upon it because they are aware that to do so would be harmful to those children. These are not bad people. Make sense?

This is a good point. Our goal should be to protect children not punish people who do them no harm. We should encourage anyone who thinks they are in danger of harming children to come forward and get help rather than hide. Someone who is attracted to children but does not act in on this because they realize the harm it would cause is a good canidate for therapy because they want to be helped.

As opposed to what to molesting children? Sure on an emotional level it's not so great, but I'm not sure what you mean by the physical level. I think that female prostitutes are physically the same as non prostitute females. And it's not as if you can say the molesters were having deep and meaningful relationships with their child victims. One step at a time here. Give them the opportunity to get pleasure from normal sex and maybe they will be able to form normal relationships in the future. If not it is still better that they have shallow sex with adults than shallow sex with children.

Well, obviously it's a step up from child molestation. No kidding. I'm just not sure "one step at a time" applies here, even if such a plan would work, which I rather doubt. (Pedophilia is really a sexual orientation, after all, and it's not like those exactly change just because one wants them to.)

As for the physical difference between your average prostitute and your average non-prostitute, there are these little thingies called STDs that are a lot easier to acquire when one is engaging in sexual activity with hundreds of strangers instead of a few acquaintances. (Of course, it sounds like your system would call for legally-sanctioned prostitution, which would likely involve more in the way of mandatory check-ups and condom use even for non-vaginal intercourse, which would certainly lessen the health risks significantly.)

This is a good point. Our goal should be to protect children not punish people who do them no harm. We should encourage anyone who thinks they are in danger of harming children to come forward and get help rather than hide. Someone who is attracted to children but does not act in on this because they realize the harm it would cause is a good canidate for therapy because they want to be helped.
that is a good point, but everyone has lapses of self control and there is always the possibility of a paedofile feeling that their feelings are validated by the existence of child pronography which increases the risk that they might act on those feelings. while i do believe that such people need help to stop them feeling like that, i think that if someone is using child pornography they should be viewed as having the potential to go a step further.

As for the physical difference between your average prostitute and your average non-prostitute, there are these little thingies called STDs that are a lot easier to acquire when one is engaging in sexual activity with hundreds of strangers instead of a few acquaintances. (Of course, it sounds like your system would call for legally-sanctioned prostitution, which would likely involve more in the way of mandatory check-ups and condom use even for non-vaginal intercourse, which would certainly lessen the health risks significantly.)

Ah, we already have legalized prostitution here and a lower STD rate than the U.S. so that's not a big problem.

No what I was saying that creating a demand for kiddy porn creates an increased production to fill demand.

And who is doing this production? Why are they producing? Keep in mind here that we're talking about raping little kids. If they're willing to do that for money, don't you think that the problem lies with them?

It is an industry that should be experiencing no growth(as close as we can make it)
I agree with you, however, it should be supply side focused. After all, it's the suppliers who are out raping little kids. (I don't know why you aren't as interested as I am in catching those monsters.)
Yes, I agree, someone who just pays for kiddie porn is feeding the montsers who make it, but actually molesting a child is the greater crime and should have the greater punishment.

And those who get it without paying for it?

Insane as doing nothing and then letting them out on parole the next time the jail fills up and they want to make some room in the cells? What about someone who turns up in a pychiatrists office and says they want help with their perverted urges? And the fact that gay men can find consenting adult partners while child molesters cannot tends to make the comparison somewhat invalid in my opinion. A gay can always say to himself, "I'm not harming anyone so why should I change?" while a child molestor cannot.
Insane is attempting the same action and expecting a different result.

If such theropies didn't change one group's sexuality, why do you think that this groups' sexuality will be effected by it?
That's the problem! The pedophiles that actually feel it's not wrong to follow their urges and become molestors. They don't have conscience problems. And it's not that they can't get consenting adult partners, they just won't, they feel attracted to kids...

I think you're painting my sexuality with a rather broad brush. You're saying that I have no moral problem with raping small children? You're saying that I have no consience? Do you even realise how offensive I find that?

And making them do something like going to a prostitute once in a while isn't going to satisfy their sexual desire for kids. Even if they'd do it, they will only do it because you make them. How many times has something imposed to you actually worked?
At least this much I agree with completely.
Is this person locked up forever? Yes? No problem. Are they going to be released at some point? Yes? Then they need to develop a conscience.

Actually, psychological studies suggest that what we call consience is actually one of those things we can't teach. It is either present or it's absent. Conservative estimates suggest that the numbers are 1 in 20 people have no consience. You can't develop a consience. You either have it or you don't. If you don't, you're a sociopath, and no amount of rehabilitation will help you.

Well I said that their paying for prostitutes and having normal sex would be a good thing. I didn't say we could force them to do that. If we forced them then we would be rapists ourselves one step removed. But the opportunity should be there for them to learn and practice healthy sexual behaviour.
Paying for prostitutes? Healthy sexual behavior? These don't go together at all.
well no i didn't say that at all.

You said thatthere wasn't a great difference between those who watch it and those who make it. Those who make it are molesting children. Those who just watch it aren't neccisarily doing so.

people who search for and use child pornography for their sexual gratification fuel an industry which perpetrates horrible abuses of children. so their actions have an indrect effect and the crime is lesser than actually doing the abusing. their actions are still having a significant effect and it doesn't make them a different sort of person at all.

Again with this whole, "you're providing demand to fuel this twisted industry" nonsense. You're ignoring the fact that freely avalible child pornography which exists on the internet essentially undercuts the pay sites, and invalidates the supply and demand arguement. You also fail to address the type of person who is driven by these market forces to abuse children just to fill demand. Aren't these people the ones we want to stop?

sure they're not all the same and there's some less dangerous than others but that doesn't mean that not all paedofiles are potentially dangerous child molesters.
Okay. In that case you're a potential rapist. After all, there's no gaurentee that you'll be able to control your urges.
Um, not all pedophiles are potentially dangerous child molestors. It is entirely possible to feel an attraction without acting upon it. For example, I like fudge. A lot. This does not mean that I am a potential fudge thief, because I am capable of deciding that however much I like fudge, stealing is still wrong. I have no doubt that there exist people who feel a strong sexual attraction towards children, but who do not act upon it because they are aware that to do so would be harmful to those children. These are not bad people. Make sense?
FINALLY! Someone gets it.

This is a good point. Our goal should be to protect children not punish people who do them no harm. We should encourage anyone who thinks they are in danger of harming children to come forward and get help rather than hide. Someone who is attracted to children but does not act in on this because they realize the harm it would cause is a good canidate for therapy because they want to be helped.
Actually, I don't act on this because I realise the harm it would cause, but I don't want your therapy. None of the currently accepted treatments for pedophelia have been shown to have any effect, and there is evidence suggesting that the only thing they do is traumatise the people going through the treatment.
Well, obviously it's a step up from child molestation. No kidding. I'm just not sure "one step at a time" applies here, even if such a plan would work, which I rather doubt. (Pedophilia is really a sexual orientation, after all, and it's not like those exactly change just because one wants them to.)

Thank you, again.
that is a good point, but everyone has lapses of self control and there is always the possibility of a paedofile feeling that their feelings are validated by the existence of child pronography which increases the risk that they might act on those feelings. while i do believe that such people need help to stop them feeling like that, i think that if someone is using child pornography they should be viewed as having the potential to go a step further.
By viewing ordinary pornography, you should be viewed as having the potential to rape others. After all, everyone has lapses of self control.

Actually, I don't act on this because I realise the harm it would cause, but I don't want your therapy. None of the currently accepted treatments for pedophelia have been shown to have any effect, and there is evidence suggesting that the only thing they do is traumatise the people going through the treatment.

Some of the "treatments" used to attempt to change the orientation of gay people in the past were less therapy and more torture, and I think only did harm. But while it is very hard to change someone's sexual orientation I think it is less difficult to expand it. If I were stranded on an island with only male company I think I could learn to enjoy homosexual practices even though they don't appeal to me in my current environment. I wouldn't lose my attraction to women, but after a while I'm sure I could gain the ability to be attracted to men. There have been gay men who have had thereapy to learn to enjoy hetrosexual sex because having a family and children was very important to them. They still feel attracted to men but have also learned to feel attraction towards women and to enjoy having sex with them. If someone was only attracted to children I would reccomend some cognitive therapy along these lines so they could enjoy hetrosexual or homosexual sex with adults. That they may still feel attraction for children is not an issue provided that they have no desire to act upon it.

Some of the "treatments" used to attempt to change the orientation of gay people in the past were less therapy and more torture, and I think only did harm.

And those are the same treatments applied today to deal with pedophelia. You should google "avoidance therapy".

But while it is very hard to change someone's sexual orientation I think it is less difficult to expand it. If I were stranded on an island with only male company I think I could learn to enjoy homosexual practices even though they don't appeal to me in my current environment. I wouldn't lose my attraction to women, but after a while I'm sure I could gain the ability to be attracted to men. There have been gay men who have had thereapy to learn to enjoy hetrosexual sex because having a family and children was very important to them. They still feel attracted to men but have also learned to feel attraction towards women and to enjoy having sex with them. If someone was only attracted to children I would reccomend some cognitive therapy along these lines so they could enjoy hetrosexual or homosexual sex with adults.

Even if I believed this, it wouldn't do me a hell of a lot of good. I am attracted to adults too.

That they may still feel attraction for children is not an issue provided that they have no desire to act upon it.
I beg to differ. It is very much an issue. Being attracted to adults is not enough to get someone out of the social pariah category of pedophile. I may be attracted to adult women, but because I'm also attracted to young girls, I'm a pedophile. And of course that means that people like YOU continue to assert that I'm a danger to society and likely to rape small children at the first oportunity.

You cant trust a child sex offender in my opinion...
They are the lowest of the low, and should stay locked away forever in some dingy cell on some rock in the middle of some ocean.

Banning anyone from the web would of course be completely unenforceable.

And of course that means that people like YOU continue to assert that I'm a danger to society and likely to rape small children at the first oportunity.

Reread my posts.

Reread my posts.

No apology for putting words in my mouth? You're not doing much to lessen prejudice here.

Reread my posts.
You're right. I'm sorry. I had confused you with Infinite Revolution.
No apology for putting words in my mouth? You're not doing much to lessen prejudice here.
Contrary to your apparent additude, I don't spend every second of every day online. After making that last post, I went to bed.

And who is doing this production? Why are they producing? Keep in mind here that we're talking about raping little kids. If they're willing to do that for money, don't you think that the problem lies with them?

snip
Yes it is

All I have said is kiddie porn distribution should remain illegal. But if it is illegal to distribute there is no legal way a person could come to posess it legaly. Therefore making posession illegal.

Yes it is

All I have said is kiddie porn distribution should remain illegal. But if it is illegal to distribute there is no legal way a person could come to posess it legaly. Therefore making posession illegal.
And your problem with distribution? I mean I get having problems with the manufacturing process, but distribution?

It's not like by looking away we're somehow undoing the damage done to these children.

Do ban people convicted of mail fraud from using the postal service? Are people conviceted of wire fraud prohibited from ever using another telephone?

No. The same standards should apply to the internet.

And your problem with distribution? I mean I get having problems with the manufacturing process, but distribution?

It's not like by looking away we're somehow undoing the damage done to these children.
Nope but allowing distribution allows sale of their product ... an illegal one that causes harm from the production. If it is effective on lessening the income ability of producer it is worth it

Yes it is

All I have said is kiddie porn distribution should remain illegal. But if it is illegal to distribute there is no legal way a person could come to posess it legaly. Therefore making posession illegal.

By limiting access to existing material, aren't you encouraging the production of new material?

And what's your opinion of child porn that doesn't involve using a child to make it? Like drawings, or fiction?

By limiting access to existing material, aren't you encouraging the production of new material?

And what's your opinion of child porn that doesn't involve using a child to make it? Like drawings, or fiction?
You are blocking access to both new and old porn hopefully

And my position is that it should be legal as long as no one was harmed in the making of it. We are trying to cut down on damage to children not morally censor what people think.

(And this is coming from the position of someone that had been abused for 2.5 years)

Nope but allowing distribution allows sale of their product ... an illegal one that causes harm from the production. If it is effective on lessening the income ability of producer it is worth it
Did banning drugs manage to harm the income ability of the producer?
You are blocking access to both new and old porn hopefully

Doesn't the standard economic model suggest that when there is an interuption of supply, that the manufacturers will attempt to compensate by increasing production?

And my position is that it should be legal as long as no one was harmed in the making of it. We are trying to cut down on damage to children not morally censor what people think.

(And this is coming from the position of someone that had been abused for 2.5 years)
While I disagree that criminalizing consumers is going to cut down on damage to children, I am gald that you can see that you don't approve of censorship of materials that may be objectionable, but aren't harmful.

Unfortunately, those in the halls of power disagree with you. In many jurisdictions, drawings, stories, CG images, nude photographs, and videos of child rape are all treated the same under the law.

In part, criminalising the virtual stuff is justified on the grounds of it being a "gateway" to the more dangerous and harmful material. Though mainly it's just an effort to be seen as "doing something" about pedophiles.

Did banning drugs manage to harm the income ability of the producer?

Doesn't the standard economic model suggest that when there is an interuption of supply, that the manufacturers will attempt to compensate by increasing production?

While I disagree that criminalizing consumers is going to cut down on damage to children, I am gald that you can see that you don't approve of censorship of materials that may be objectionable, but aren't harmful.

Unfortunately, those in the halls of power disagree with you. In many jurisdictions, drawings, stories, CG images, nude photographs, and videos of child rape are all treated the same under the law.

In part, criminalising the virtual stuff is justified on the grounds of it being a "gateway" to the more dangerous and harmful material. Though mainly it's just an effort to be seen as "doing something" about pedophiles.

Then what do you propose to do to cut down on harmed children, especially sense many of the current producers are off shore out of US jurisdiction.

I think you're painting my sexuality with a rather broad brush. You're saying that I have no moral problem with raping small children? You're saying that I have no consience? Do you even realise how offensive I find that?

I'm sorry, are you a child molester? Because that's the kind of person I was talking about. And yes, I really think that those who can do such terrible things have no problems with their conscience. I can't think about someone that goes ahead and makes whatever he wants of a defenseless child and then goes home and cries about it. If you are a child molester I don't think I can have much consideration or understanding or pity for you.

If you're a pedophile and don't go around hurting children, that's another case completely. In this case, I can't see why you got all fired up about what I said concerning molesters.

This should be the link (http://www.davesdaily.com/out.php?id=16783&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wfmy.com%2Fnews%2Fwatercooler%2Farticle.aspx%3Fstoryid%3D63645)

Interesting Idea, I think. It would stop the predators from gaining access to kiddie porn and what not online. Your thoughts?
Be pure hell to enforce, eh? [ sends away for application for Internet Protective Services employment ] Heh!

Then what do you propose to do to cut down on harmed children, especially sense many of the current producers are off shore out of US jurisdiction.
I just think it's nieve to think that criminalizing the consumers is going to have any significant impact on the manufacturers. If they're operating off shore, cooperate with the law enforcement departments of the country they are operating in. This isn't rocket science.
I'm sorry, are you a child molester? Because that's the kind of person I was talking about. And yes, I really think that those who can do such terrible things have no problems with their conscience. I can't think about someone that goes ahead and makes whatever he wants of a defenseless child and then goes home and cries about it. If you are a child molester I don't think I can have much consideration or understanding or pity for you.

If you're a pedophile and don't go around hurting children, that's another case completely. In this case, I can't see why you got all fired up about what I said concerning molesters.
You weren't exactly clear on the distinction. I got fire up about what you said, because what you said could be interpreted as talking about pedophiles in general, rather than the subset which are also child molesters. Now that you've made things a tad clearer, I'll agree with you.

Yes. I have a friend who wasn't even convicted, but was under indictment for hacking. He was not allowed near any computer at all. If you can ban hackers, you shoudl be able to ban sex offenders, too.
wow sounds like you have some wierd friends no offence

You weren't exactly clear on the distinction. I got fire up about what you said, because what you said could be interpreted as talking about pedophiles in general, rather than the subset which are also child molesters. Now that you've made things a tad clearer, I'll agree with you.

My exact words were "That's the problem! The pedophiles that actually feel it's not wrong to follow their urges and become molestors."

I think this makes the distinction quite clear.

In any case, I agree that people can't go around and punish those who have evidence of abuses (pictures) on their PCs. That can happen for more than one reason. I had a some friends that had a collection of pics and clips with torture, mutilation and other stuff like that. They thought it would be something that could make them somewhat unique from the others. I won't talk about the maturity of their thougts, but it wasn't like they actually enjoyed it or were happy and aproving of those things happening.

Also, a healthy sexual behaviour starts in the mind. If a person isn't attracted, feels nothing for members of the opposite sex that are the same age, making it easier to get in touch with them will mean absolutely nothing. And a strong attraction for kids won't just go away if you "show them what a "normal" sex encounter is like".

You can argue what other people think, but you can't tell somebody that what they feel is wrong. I guess that's why they say that love is blind. Feelings won't listen to reason. And changing somebody's feelings for another is, no matter how hard, as wrong as it is for molesters to impose their urges on kids.

I can't argue if what a pedophile feels is wrong or not. I guess only God can tell. So, I think that only the actual hurting of a child must be condemned. And those that hurt kids acting on impulses that they can't control, should be locked away or monitored all the time so they don't get any opportunities.

My exact words were "That's the problem! The pedophiles that actually feel it's not wrong to follow their urges and become molestors."

I think this makes the distinction quite clear.

I see it now that you point it out. I think I'd transposed some words in there. I misread it as "That pedophiles actually feel it's not wrong to follow their urges and become molesters."

Now that I look more carefully, I was definately wrong there, and opoligise.

In any case, I agree that people can't go around and punish those who have evidence of abuses (pictures) on their PCs. That can happen for more than one reason. I had a some friends that had a collection of pics and clips with torture, mutilation and other stuff like that. They thought it would be something that could make them somewhat unique from the others. I won't talk about the maturity of their thougts, but it wasn't like they actually enjoyed it or were happy and aproving of those things happening.

Well, they can and they do. I agree that they shouldn't be able to, though.

Also, a healthy sexual behaviour starts in the mind. If a person isn't attracted, feels nothing for members of the opposite sex that are the same age, making it easier to get in touch with them will mean absolutely nothing. And a strong attraction for kids won't just go away if you "show them what a "normal" sex encounter is like".

I agree completely with this. It's as ignorant as suggesting that using the same sorts of procedures on gay people would "straighten them out". It doesn't work, and we have years worth of studies proving it doesn't work.

You can argue what other people think, but you can't tell somebody that what they feel is wrong. I guess that's why they say that love is blind. Feelings won't listen to reason. And changing somebody's feelings for another is, no matter how hard, as wrong as it is for molesters to impose their urges on kids.

Personally, I consider attempting to rewrite basic aspects of someone else's personality to be the one truly unforgivable crime, so I would actually put them below the molesters (who occupy a pretty low position in my moral scale already).

Still, your point is duely noted. It's not right by any stretch to do this to someone.

I can't argue if what a pedophile feels is wrong or not. I guess only God can tell.

If God wants to condemn me, I'll treat Him the same as everyone else who takes that position. (Which includes both giving him a chance to make his case, and dismissing him if he is no more convincing than the humans I've argued with.) I don't believe in bowing to "moral authorities", no matter how highly reccomended or well qualified.

So, I think that only the actual hurting of a child must be condemned. And those that hurt kids acting on impulses that they can't control, should be locked away or monitored all the time so they don't get any opportunities.
I'll agree with you there.

I think we should be especially vigilant in determining who is actually hurting these kids. After the "10% of all molesters are pedophiles, with the other 90% being situational offenders and not pedophiles" statistic, I get the impression that we're looking in the wrong places for child molesters.

I'd also suggest similarly harsh penalties for someone who causes such an experience to be percieved more harshly and to become more damaging than it already is on its own.

Hurting kids is a terrible thing, and I think we should deal with it quite harshly. Let's just be clear that pedophiles aren't the most likely source for such harm to come from.

Banning anyone from the web would of course be completely unenforceable.

I agree. That and sexual predators are such a hot-button issue with so many people that no form of punishment is too extreme. After all, there are plenty of people in favor of castrating rapists, so why not apply the same mentality to child molesters and surgically remove their eyes?