The New York Times supports Child Pornography

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The New York Times supports Child Pornography

Stinky_Pete: Aug 16, 2015; Stinkier than your average bear; Lipstick Apathy

PT6A posted:

Yeah, great... now find a way to prove in a court of law that the image was legal to possess when it was received, possibly with an uncooperative sender.

If we don't do something convoluted like a digital signing scheme, we have to either accept that pedos will get away with sharing/viewing exploitative child pornography on the edge cases, or that the laws will probably end up being used against "undesirables" like that 12-year-old that got put on the sex offender registry for having sex with another 12-year-old.

You can't make or modify laws without considering how they will actually be enforced.

The more a teenager knows about encryption, the less likely he'll need to use it to protect their sexual communiques with their peers. I mean come on, we can barely get them to understand STDs or use condoms. Maybe the bill should just specify that all onus of proving it was received when it was against the law is on the prosecutor, which now that I think of it, is how courts are supposed to work anyway.

Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 13, 2016

# ¿ Apr 13, 2016 17:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 00:58

Stinky_Pete: Aug 16, 2015; Stinkier than your average bear; Lipstick Apathy

PT6A posted:

You could easily add this sort of feature to SnapChat or something similar, I'm not saying each person has to figure it out on their own. Plenty of stuff is already automatically encrypted or signed without user intervention. Frankly, I can see it being an attractive feature for an app for adults too, since I'm sure most people would like to minimize the chances of other random people seeing their nude photos.

Your point about the burden of proof is good, though; I'm just concerned that, where child pornography is involved, being within a certain age range would be an affirmative defence -- that is to say, you still did the thing prohibited by the law, but you were legally justified in doing so. Thus, the defendant would have to prove those facts, instead of the other way around, as is necessary for self-defence (for an example). It probably would be good if it were harder to prosecute these sorts of cases if there's any kind of grey area, but I don't see that happening with the constant "think of the children" mentality.

If the prosecution is claiming the defendant did something that's only illegal at a certain time or location, isn't it on the prosecution to prove they did indeed do it at that time? Like, if there were a curfew, how is it that I have to prove that it was before curfew when I went outside?

# ¿ Apr 13, 2016 23:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The New York Times supports Child Pornography