Cynic wrote:
> 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?
Stick the cash in an envelope and post it to a poste restante overseas.
>
>> - 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.
There are countries where even murderers aren't prosecuted. And KP is
not regarded as a priority in many. Strangely enough, some people only
want to go after those making it, not simply selling it.
> 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.
Where large numbers of people are above the law.
>
>> 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.
Making kp to have to trade with other makers is just as criminal as
making it to sell.
> 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.
What police officer? You reckon that the Haiti police prioritise child
abuse? You reckon that they are trying to infiltrate something as
trivial as child abuse gangs? You know how much a child is worth in PAP?
You do know what "reste avec" is?
>
>> 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.
Yet there is a thriving business in warez compilation disks.
>
> 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?
Well, if you think that kp should be treated the same as music, what can
I say?
>
>>> 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.
Or stick it in the post. Or put it on a members-only website, hosted
overseas.
> There is a good reason why illegal drugs are always sold to the end
> user in this way rather than by mailorder.
IIUC, They aren't. There is any amount of prescription drugs that I
could get posted to me, today.
>
>>> 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.
Convictions for murder in PAP are very rare. Dead bodies are to be found
on the river beds every morning..
> 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?
>
Where in English Law does it state that a ban has to await evidence to
justify it? Just how big a rise in child abuse statistics should
society wait for, before deciding that a ban is a good idea?
--
Sue
|