Sources: The Smoking Gun, Philly.com, BBC News, via Slashdot
quote: I mean, if people were getting murdered solely to take those pics, then yeah, it's just as wrong on many levels. If you're simply arguing "I like to look at gruesome dismembered things" - As digusting as it is, it's different. People and animals die and get dismembered all the time from nobody's fault. The images can be obtained through legal means without ever committing a crime.
quote: Should people face criminal charges for writing stories or song lyrics that depict illegal acts?
quote: I'm not sure why you view these similarly. People do not murder someone to take their picture and feed into weird fetishes. The only images of murder victims out there are images taken after the fact by bystanders, law enforcement, military personnel, etc. Such things occur all the time and are the norm in the world.
quote: With child pornography the photographer is ALWAYS knowingly committing a pretty heinous act involving forcing an under-aged child to partake in sexual acts against their will, and take photographs specifically to fulfill a fetish based entirely on that illegal act. The existence of the market for such media drives more abductions of young children for this purpose.
quote: That is just *so* far from the point, I don't even know how to reply to that.
quote: I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time following... I asked you a pretty specific question: IF someone records video or photographs themselves in the act of murdering someone, and then a third party who had nothing to do with said murder acquires the media, should the third party be as guilty as the murderer?
quote: I did answer your question, just maybe not directly. Yes they should be guilty. Maybe not charged with the murder itself, but you were an accomplice to the crime and you actively participated.
quote: The rest of your post is just so absurd I won't bother. The sheer fact that you are advocating the idea that obtaining and owning child pornogrtaphy is OK suggests that you don't understand the differences in your own examples.
quote: Merely owning video or photos of a crime in progress does not make someone an accomplice to anything, especially if said media was obtained AFTER the crime was committed and the perpetrator has been locked up.
quote: What, exactly, is absurd about anything I said? I'm not advocating pedophilia; if advocacy is what you read then it's possibly a freudian slip on your part.
quote: My point is quite obvious - possession of information or media depicting a crime should not in itself be a crime if the possessor had nothing to do with committing said crime.
quote: If someone printed out some pedo porn photos and put them in your bag - without you knowing - and then proceeded to call the cops and report that he saw you looking at these photos then stash them in your bag, you'd likely have criminal charges brought against you when the cops suddenly show up and find the photos in YOUR possession...but hey, keep tooting the "save the children" horn while you're getting reamed up the buttox by bubba for that heinous "crime" you committed.
quote: Due process exists for a reason - and no matter how wretched a crime may be, there is never any valid reason for due process to be circumvented or abbreviated just to appease a figurative lynch mob.
quote: That was my entire point. You can't have child pornography that happened "after the fact." It requires taking photography during the act of the crime. I guarantee you that having pictures of a murder in progress would land you with just as much questioning. Ever hear of a snuff film? They're highly illegal in almost every corner of the world.
quote: Are you actually aware of what a fruedian slip is?
quote: Child pornography exists due to the demand for it. Why else would people take and distribute or sell pictures of it? So by all means, having copies of child pornography is producing demand in the industry for it to happen.
quote: Yeah, because everyone conveniently carries around printed copies of child porn in their backpacks at all times. Very believable scenario. It would take all of an hour at the police station to sort out that the person is highly unlikely to be guilty.
quote: When did I say it shouldnt?
quote: You may not have stole them, but that does not mean you have to right to receive/possess them and can be convicted if you are found with stolen goods.
quote: Your argument about having somebody stuff pedo porn in your bag while walking down the street would be the same is somebody walked by and threw some stolen goods in your bag.
quote: In this case, it was not somebody else uploading it and trying to frame him unless they had his username and password. In that case, the prosecuters job is to show that he did upload it, and it is the defenses job to show that he did not, somebody else did.