Thanks to a series of busts, there is now (supposedly) less kiddie porn on the net than there was a few months ago. What we are getting now is a series of non-nude erotic pictures of children as publishers try to test legal boundries.
Naturally the Pedophiles are unhappy about this:
”I considered the authors of those sites as leaders of a rebellion movement for child porn,” a man calling himself Heartfallen wrote in an online site for pedophiles, discussing the decline in the number of sites featuring images of naked minors. “They’ve vanished. There is much less freedom on the Internet now. We still have a rebellion made up of nonnude child modeling sites. But are they going to suffer the same fate as their predecessors?”
Some freedoms, including the freedom to exploit children, are not needed. This article also includes an extensive discussion on laws that relate to kiddie porn, which is relevant and needs to be considered with non-nude kiddie sites.
What is also a problem is that these places spam non-pornographic newsgroups, yahoo clubs etc. with their garbage as well.
Great article Shoprat.
Many people are unaware that a child doesn’t have to be ‘nude’ for the image to be illegal.
We’ll find them all and report them too
Comment by Daydreamer of Oz — August 21, 2006 @ 2:12 am
Uhhh that is just sick. I can’t even comment.
Comment by The Drunken Samurai — August 21, 2006 @ 2:25 am
Uhhh that is just sick. I can’t even comment.
Comment by The Drunken Samurai — August 21, 2006 @ 2:25 am
I can’t get past this “civil liberties” notion. What in the world could possibly make them think that exploiting another human being is a civil right?
Comment by JMatthews — August 21, 2006 @ 4:13 am
I can’t get past this “civil liberties” notion. What in the world could possibly make them think that exploiting another human being is a civil right?
Comment by JMatthews — August 21, 2006 @ 4:13 am
We will definately find them and get their sites shut down for good. Go ahead and hide, pedo scum. If you post illegal child porn, the cops will be knocking on your door soon.
Comment by Sues — August 21, 2006 @ 6:42 am
We will definately find them and get their sites shut down for good. Go ahead and hide, pedo scum. If you post illegal child porn, the cops will be knocking on your door soon.
Comment by Sues — August 21, 2006 @ 6:42 am
Thanks for posting this Shoprat.
You know one thing I find interesting is that the pedovores discuss child porn regularly.
Some of them say that child porn causes no harm, or they say it’s a victimless crime. OR you have Lindsay Ashford who claims it doesn’t even exist.
Comment by Stitches77 — August 21, 2006 @ 8:36 am
Thanks for posting this Shoprat.
You know one thing I find interesting is that the pedovores discuss child porn regularly.
Some of them say that child porn causes no harm, or they say it’s a victimless crime. OR you have Lindsay Ashford who claims it doesn’t even exist.
Comment by Stitches77 — August 21, 2006 @ 8:36 am
That’s good to hear, although I wonder if a decrease in the amount of CP circulating online also means a decrease in the amount being produced….
I can’t get past this “civil liberties” notion. What in the world could possibly make them think that exploiting another human being is a civil right?
The idea is that a person shouldn’t be sent to prison just for looking at child porn, since you’re just viewing an image of someone being exploited and not actually doing it.
I definetly think paying for child pornography should be illegal, since that’s directly supporting the people making it….. but I’m not so enthusiastic over arresting people who aren’t paying.
I guess I support the laws as long as they’re aimed solely at reducing demand for (and production of) CP, and not just because it’s a social taboo. It’s my belief that something should never be banned on the grounds of mass opinion, only because it harms someone.
At the same time though, it seems like police are wasting a huge amount of money and effort (such as the gigantic operations in Ireland) on catching the users, rather than the producers.
Comment by Twilight_Sky — August 21, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
That’s good to hear, although I wonder if a decrease in the amount of CP circulating online also means a decrease in the amount being produced….
I can’t get past this “civil liberties” notion. What in the world could possibly make them think that exploiting another human being is a civil right?
The idea is that a person shouldn’t be sent to prison just for looking at child porn, since you’re just viewing an image of someone being exploited and not actually doing it.
I definetly think paying for child pornography should be illegal, since that’s directly supporting the people making it….. but I’m not so enthusiastic over arresting people who aren’t paying.
I guess I support the laws as long as they’re aimed solely at reducing demand for (and production of) CP, and not just because it’s a social taboo. It’s my belief that something should never be banned on the grounds of mass opinion, only because it harms someone.
At the same time though, it seems like police are wasting a huge amount of money and effort (such as the gigantic operations in Ireland) on catching the users, rather than the producers.
Comment by Twilight_Sky — August 21, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
Twilight,
I’ve known for a while now that you’re losing your grip on reality. That last comment proved that it’s finally happened. You don’t have any rational thoughts left, do you?
The idea is that a person shouldn’t be sent to prison just for looking at child porn, since you’re just viewing an image of someone being exploited and not actually doing it.
VIEWING IMAGES OF SOMEONE BEING EXPLOITED IS EXPLOITATION
Child exploitatin is not a social taboo. It is an activity that society has deemed unacceptable because IT IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN
Clearly you can’t work out why the police go after the ‘users’ rather than the ‘producers’ and this is entirely your issue. I’m not really sure why you think we’re your babysitters.
Your comments here have proven that you are exactly what you said you weren’t: a paedophile who thinks exploiting children is ok.
Seek help or go away because you and your illness will never be accepted here.
Comment by Daydreamer of Oz — August 21, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
Twilight,
I’ve known for a while now that you’re losing your grip on reality. That last comment proved that it’s finally happened. You don’t have any rational thoughts left, do you?
The idea is that a person shouldn’t be sent to prison just for looking at child porn, since you’re just viewing an image of someone being exploited and not actually doing it.
VIEWING IMAGES OF SOMEONE BEING EXPLOITED IS EXPLOITATION
Child exploitatin is not a social taboo. It is an activity that society has deemed unacceptable because IT IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN
Clearly you can’t work out why the police go after the ‘users’ rather than the ‘producers’ and this is entirely your issue. I’m not really sure why you think we’re your babysitters.
Your comments here have proven that you are exactly what you said you weren’t: a paedophile who thinks exploiting children is ok.
Seek help or go away because you and your illness will never be accepted here.
Comment by Daydreamer of Oz — August 21, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
Twilight,
Are you f**king nuts? What the hell is wrong with you boy? How is it OK for an adult to view or possess images of children in a sexual nature? This alone is and should be a crime. If there were no market for this crap then less of it would exist. Sorry for the language, but that pisses me off you little freak.
Comment by BigNewsDay — August 21, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
Twilight,
Are you f**king nuts? What the hell is wrong with you boy? How is it OK for an adult to view or possess images of children in a sexual nature? This alone is and should be a crime. If there were no market for this crap then less of it would exist. Sorry for the language, but that pisses me off you little freak.
Comment by BigNewsDay — August 21, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
I’m dumbfounded. I thought even Twilight was above making a statement like this since you’re just viewing an image of someone being exploited and not actually doing it.
Every single time someone views an image of a child it is a renewed incidence of exploitation. You are trying to minimize it and say its not wrong to look at as long as you didn’t A) make it or B) pay for it, is along the same lines as those who accuse children who’ve been molested of being child prostitutes.
And as if that weren’t enough he said it seems like police are wasting a huge amount of money and effort
Twi, there are some verrrrry important (and varied) reasons why law enforcement concentrates their efforts on finding the USERS of child porn, many times more so than the producers of it. I’m gonna give you a couple of days to think on that Twilight. And if you still haven’t figured it out, I’ll spell it out for you. But you’re gonna have to think on it first. Frankly, I’m rather tired of just handing you the answers, perhaps it will mean more to you if you figure it out yourself.
I’m with Bignews on this one Are you f**king nuts? What the hell is wrong with you boy?
Comment by Stitches77 — August 21, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
I’m dumbfounded. I thought even Twilight was above making a statement like this since you’re just viewing an image of someone being exploited and not actually doing it.
Every single time someone views an image of a child it is a renewed incidence of exploitation. You are trying to minimize it and say its not wrong to look at as long as you didn’t A) make it or B) pay for it, is along the same lines as those who accuse children who’ve been molested of being child prostitutes.
And as if that weren’t enough he said it seems like police are wasting a huge amount of money and effort
Twi, there are some verrrrry important (and varied) reasons why law enforcement concentrates their efforts on finding the USERS of child porn, many times more so than the producers of it. I’m gonna give you a couple of days to think on that Twilight. And if you still haven’t figured it out, I’ll spell it out for you. But you’re gonna have to think on it first. Frankly, I’m rather tired of just handing you the answers, perhaps it will mean more to you if you figure it out yourself.
I’m with Bignews on this one Are you f**king nuts? What the hell is wrong with you boy?
Comment by Stitches77 — August 21, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
I notice that not much was said on the fact that they spam areas where innocent people can download their garbage without realizing it, especially if they use software to download automatically (foolish but people do it.)
Comment by shoprat — August 22, 2006 @ 4:08 am
I notice that not much was said on the fact that they spam areas where innocent people can download their garbage without realizing it, especially if they use software to download automatically (foolish but people do it.)
Comment by shoprat — August 22, 2006 @ 4:08 am
Shoprat,
Is it just me? I don’t get the purpose behind them doing that? Do they think normal people will see it and get hooked or something?
Bizarre.
Comment by Daydreamer of Oz — August 22, 2006 @ 5:20 am
Shoprat,
Is it just me? I don’t get the purpose behind them doing that? Do they think normal people will see it and get hooked or something?
Bizarre.
Comment by Daydreamer of Oz — August 22, 2006 @ 5:20 am
VIEWING IMAGES OF SOMEONE BEING EXPLOITED IS EXPLOITATION
No, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I didn’t say I agree with that way of thinking. I was explaining to jmatthews what the reasoning behind the “civil liberty” line of thought is.
Child exploitatin is not a social taboo
I didn’t say it was. I said looking at child pornography is a social taboo, and that that shouldn’t be the reason it’s illegal. It should be illegal to try and lessen the amount of CP being made.
How is it OK for an adult to view or possess images of children in a sexual nature?
For the love of God, can you people read? I stated, quite clearly, that I agree with the anti-CP laws as long as they’re being enacted for the right reasons:
“I guess I support the laws as long as they’re aimed solely at reducing demand for (and production of) CP”
Although this highlights my issues with the subject nicely. Child pornography shouldn’t be illegal just because people think it’s wrong for adults to view or own, as that would imply that it’s being banned on puritanical reasons, or due to common opinion. It should be banned only to reduce the amount being made, and thereby reducing the number of children being exploited.
I thought even Twilight was above making a statement like this since you’re just viewing an image of someone being exploited and not actually doing it.
Again, this isn’t my opinion. I’m explaining what other people believe to answer jmatthew’s question.
Comment by Twilight_Sky — August 22, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
VIEWING IMAGES OF SOMEONE BEING EXPLOITED IS EXPLOITATION
No, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I didn’t say I agree with that way of thinking. I was explaining to jmatthews what the reasoning behind the “civil liberty” line of thought is.
Child exploitatin is not a social taboo
I didn’t say it was. I said looking at child pornography is a social taboo, and that that shouldn’t be the reason it’s illegal. It should be illegal to try and lessen the amount of CP being made.
How is it OK for an adult to view or possess images of children in a sexual nature?
For the love of God, can you people read? I stated, quite clearly, that I agree with the anti-CP laws as long as they’re being enacted for the right reasons:
“I guess I support the laws as long as they’re aimed solely at reducing demand for (and production of) CP”
Although this highlights my issues with the subject nicely. Child pornography shouldn’t be illegal just because people think it’s wrong for adults to view or own, as that would imply that it’s being banned on puritanical reasons, or due to common opinion. It should be banned only to reduce the amount being made, and thereby reducing the number of children being exploited.
I thought even Twilight was above making a statement like this since you’re just viewing an image of someone being exploited and not actually doing it.
Again, this isn’t my opinion. I’m explaining what other people believe to answer jmatthew’s question.
Comment by Twilight_Sky — August 22, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
“Child pornography shouldn’t be illegal just because people think it’s wrong for adults to view or own, as that would imply that it’s being banned on puritanical reasons, or due to common opinion.”
You are right. Child porn should be illegal because it exploits and harms children. For this reason, anyone knowingly producing, possessing, or viewing child porn is breaking the law and should be locked up. Whether someone is paying for it should have no bearing on whether or not a crime has been committed.
Comment by BigNewsDay — August 22, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
“Child pornography shouldn’t be illegal just because people think it’s wrong for adults to view or own, as that would imply that it’s being banned on puritanical reasons, or due to common opinion.”
You are right. Child porn should be illegal because it exploits and harms children. For this reason, anyone knowingly producing, possessing, or viewing child porn is breaking the law and should be locked up. Whether someone is paying for it should have no bearing on whether or not a crime has been committed.
Comment by BigNewsDay — August 22, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
daydreamer of oz
I don’t they’re looking for converts so much as they are trolling for closet pedophiles to stumble across their stuff, like it and pay to see it, thus enter their world. I am sure it sickens alot more people then it attracts.
Comment by shoprat — August 22, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
daydreamer of oz
I don’t they’re looking for converts so much as they are trolling for closet pedophiles to stumble across their stuff, like it and pay to see it, thus enter their world. I am sure it sickens alot more people then it attracts.
Comment by shoprat — August 22, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
Good points Shoprat.
Comment by Daydreamer of Oz — August 23, 2006 @ 12:19 am
Good points Shoprat.
Comment by Daydreamer of Oz — August 23, 2006 @ 12:19 am