On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:33:52 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>>> An example would be when a market in the images is created (as was the case
>>> with Ore & I'm sure, others) The demand (as in any other market) needs to be
>>> satisfied in order to keep the money coming in & that can only be done by
>>> committing further acts of .ual abuse against that child or other
>>> children.
>> I am aware of that argument, and have stated many times why it is
>> deficit. If the production of child abuse images is illegal (which I
>> do not have a problem with), there cannot *be* the market you speak
>> of, because it is always going to be trivial to trace the money back
>> to the seller.
>Even if that can always be done (and I doubt it)
You doubt it eh? Care to tell me how a person could get payment from
members of the general public from an Internet sale without giving
away sufficient information to allow a law enforcement official to be
able to trace their identity PDQ?
> - fancy trying to
>prosecute someone for such offences in Zimbabwe? Or Haiti? Or China?
These days, with the production of KP being a serious criminal offence
in *all* countries, prosecution is likely no matter where the
location. Even countries that turn a blind eye to child prostitution
will cooperate when a Western country asks them to pursue criminality
that has spread to its shores. I am extremely familiar with Zimbabwe
as it happens (having lived there), and can assure you that not only
KP and child .ual abuse, but also adult homo.ual activities and
adult hardcore hetero.ual .ography that are 100% legal in the UK
are zealously pursued and very harshly punished. It is a pretty
puritanical country.
>Plus, how do they even detect the stuff being traded between
>individuals, in "donate some to join" private groups?
What has the ease of detection got to do with anything? Making the
viewing of kp illegal does not make it easier to detect the producers.
Such groups are usually exposed when a member gets caught doing
something else, and reveals the other group members. Or a police
officer manages to infiltrate the group by posing as a paedophile.
>There does seem to be a significant demand for illegal images, judging
>by the numbers done for it. Where-ever there is a demand, there will be
>someone making money from it.
Pure supposition. The rules don't work in the same way for an
intangible commodity as they do for a physical commodity. Selling the
material is *far* more dangerous than giving it away.
There is a great demand for music downloads - yet attempts to make
money from them are not very successful despite the fact that it is
legal to make money from it and illegal *not* to make money from it!
Do you think that *anyone* would be trying to compete against free P2P
filesharing by trying to sell music downloads if it were illegal to
sell them?
>> Ore is certainly *not* an example of a market that
>> would increase the amount of child abuse, because no money went to the
>> people who actually produced the material AFAIAA. Unless money gets
>> to people who make the stuff, it does not provide the incentive to
>> make more.
>All it needs is the belief that there is money to be had, for people to
>try to profit from it.
Sure, people have *tried* - mainly by collecting stuff that already
exists and selling it - but all have been caught pretty quickly. To
remain untraceable the seller would really need to burn the kp to a
disk and sell it as a physical commodity person-to-person for cash.
There is a good reason why illegal drugs are always sold to the end
user in this way rather than by mailorder.
>> The only cases I have heard of where children were .ually exploited
>> to make money from the sale of kp were quickly traced, the
>> perpetrators quite rightly convicted and AFAIK are still in prison.
>And on that basis you have determined that no one, anywhere, is making
>kp to sell?
On that basis I have determined that the extent of such sales is
insignificant. The same as the number of prosecutions for *any*
seriously enforced crime is an indication as to how widespread that
crime is. I have never claimed that it does not happen *at all*, only
that the viewing of the material does not create the forces needed to
cause any significant amount of child abuse that would not otherwise
take place.
In any case, to justify a prohibition the onus is upon the
prohibitionist to prove their case, not the other way about. Could
you prove that people are not being killed and injured by bananas? If
not, should we ban them?
--
Cynic |