thought on an interesting L+O:SVU episode from awhile back

[Aske]

So it centered around this sick kiddie molester (don't all the episodes? ) who ended up not only abusing but killing some 9 year old.

It turns out that this was not his 1st offense (at least for molest) as he was a prior offender who had been chemically castrated.  Anyways, so he starts his life anew, blah blah, seems to be doing fine for awhile.  Then this online pr0n0 company starts sending him emails (apparently by harvesting his info from **** offender database).  He claims he ignored them, requested opt-out over and over, and after weeks/months finally could no longer resist the temptation and opened the email and tried their 'service'- which was in fact taking images/videos  of non kids (18+) and then 'digitally enhancing them' to look like young kids (opposite of age progression software for missing kids ).  Anyways, so the police/DA offer him a reduced sentence for helping to convict the web pr0n biz, which eventually succeeds (for facilitating his actions, not for their actual content).    So an underlying theme was should free speech extend to the products that were being 'sold' in this business?   The online site owner kept yelling, the courts have ruled against suppressing this type of speech,  the DA kept saying maybe the laws should adapt to the times... etc. 

Anyways, it was just profoundly disturbing and wondered if anyone else had seen this one ?

[stroh]

Didn't see the episode.  Sounds disturbing.

So, what exactly is the question?  Should the product being sold be defended under Free Speech?

Isn't the depiction of minors in ****ual acts, or ****ual material prohibited?

I guess I can't see how a CG morph of an adult into a depiction of a child in a ****ual act could be defended as art.

If I morph my drivers license at age 18 to one that would have me appear 21 get a pass under Free Speech?

Or am I missing your point. 

[Aske]

Didn't see the episode.  Sounds disturbing.

So, what exactly is the question?  Should the product being sold be defended under Free Speech?

Isn't the depiction of minors in ****ual acts, or ****ual material prohibited?

I guess I can't see how a CG morph of an adult into a depiction of a child in a ****ual act could be defended as art.

If I morph my drivers license at age 18 to one that would have me appear 21 get a pass under Free Speech?

Or am I missing your point. 

not at all.  just not sure really what I think about it.  wondered what others would chime in.
i know pasting the 'real photo or a real minor'  into a pr0no type photo is considered a crime.

another example:
should it be illegal for people who have that 'dont age disease' {whatever it's called?}  (aka they can be 25 and look 10)  to be pr0no stars if they want to be ? 


 

[stroh]

Good point.  My take would be the law stands on what it is.  As of now, that would would be verifiable chronological age.  Probably sad in some case for there's no doubt that there are people like you mentioned being exploited for their "youthful" looks."

Maybe there are some laws out there on how this stuff is marketed.

[Clive]

Late to this party.  Also, I'll confess in advance my relative ignorance of pröñography laws in general and child pröñography laws in particular.  Been a long time since I was in the business.  That said ...

There's the more general question of First Amendment protection for (a) the company's video-altering software, and (b) their video products made using that technology.  The software plausibly has some utility outside of facilitating commission of child pröñography crimes, so I'd think it is protected.  The videos, though, I would understand to be illegal as violating current federal child-pröñography laws.

18 USC 2256:

( 8 ) “child pröñography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of ****ually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in ****ually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in ****ually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in ****ually explicit conduct.

A second issue of interest is whether the company can be punished for targeting their wares to known **** offenders, and especially to known child **** offenders.  My understanding is that there's little debate that rehabilitation is low and that recidivism is several times likelier than for non-**** offenders.  I would tend to think that even if the technology had legal uses, targeted marketing to RSOs is actionable (criminal and civil).  Aiding/abetting, conspiracy, ...

[stroh]

Well stated.  Thanks for the research.

Pretty much how I (hoped) it would read.

[Aske]

interesting indeed. thanks for the legal edumakashun.  so on the show they made it seem like it should be much harder to bring the 'company' down.

[gleek]

Late to this party.  Also, I'll confess in advance my relative ignorance of pröñography laws in general and child pröñography laws in particular.  Been a long time since I was in the business.  That said ...

There's the more general question of First Amendment protection for (a) the company's video-altering software, and (b) their video products made using that technology.  The software plausibly has some utility outside of facilitating commission of child pröñography crimes, so I'd think it is protected.  The videos, though, I would understand to be illegal as violating current federal child-pröñography laws.

18 USC 2256:

( 8 ) “child pröñography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of ****ually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in ****ually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in ****ually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in ****ually explicit conduct.

A second issue of interest is whether the company can be punished for targeting their wares to known **** offenders, and especially to known child **** offenders.  My understanding is that there's little debate that rehabilitation is low and that recidivism is several times likelier than for non-**** offenders.  I would tend to think that even if the technology had legal uses, targeted marketing to RSOs is actionable (criminal and civil).  Aiding/abetting, conspiracy, ...

However, does a child **** offender's viewing of child pröñography (whether they're real or fake depictions) necessarily increase the likelihood of a relapse?

[stroh]

Hard to quantify I guess.

Sam Malone did alright owning a bar.

[gleek]

If Clive is correct in that rehabilitation is low and recidivism is high, what's the point of ever releasing child-**** offenders from prison? If they're going to be ticking time bombs while out on parole, perhaps viewing fake child pr0n could serve as an outlet for these pervs to reduce the likelihood of a relapse.

Having said that, I'd have to say that those that actually produce fake child pr0n are probably sick *fudge*s just like the consumers of such. 

[stroh]

If Clive is correct in that rehabilitation is low and recidivism is high, what's the point of ever releasing child-**** offenders from prison? If they're going to be ticking time bombs while out on parole, perhaps viewing fake child pr0n could serve as an outlet for these pervs to reduce the likelihood of a relapse.

Having said that, I'd have to say that those that actually produce fake child pr0n are probably sick *fudge*s just like the consumers of such. 

Agreed.

[Clive]

"Higher" rate of recidivism is relative to non-**** offenders.  From what I found in a quick Google experience (and obligatory cigarette afterward), it's less than 10% of RSOs who are convicted a second time of a ****-related offense.  Baby, bathwater, ...