It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Child Sex Crime Pornography and the Media

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:09 AM
OK, as a "one time victim of child rape" I know this is a huge issue. But everytime I turn my TV on it is all over the place. Every cable news channel, local news channels, newspapers, the internet, ect.
My question is this....
Is it as bad as everyone is telling us?
Is it a diversion so we dont talk about the REAL issues?...Loosing the war in Iraq comes to mind.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by tommyb98201]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by tommyb98201]

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:38 PM
Um well I do think media is being used to distract us from the real issues like the Iraq war etc. I don't think child rape is one of the things that's meant to distract us in the same way as say the latest Brtiney Spears gossip; child molestation does happen often and is really really disturbing

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:51 PM
As a person who is against hurting the children in anyway, I'm glad its all over the place, It needs to be in peoples eyes to DO SOMETHING about it.

Making sure childporn is taken down, ect. Most of the time people tend to sway from the subject matter. They don't want to hear it or think of it. But it should be out there to help people know whats going on.

Imagine if a child didn't see anything about it being wrong the child would mostlikly grow up think that it was ok, and do it themselves.

Hopefuly when a child tells an adult about they would do something but sometimes bad things happen and they wont. Hopefuly that child grows up to help other children.

But to me its not a distraction its more people coming out letting others know and what to do about the harm that is being done.

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:51 AM
I think the whole topic is getting blown all out of proportion. In my state, there's 4 categories of sex offenders based on threat to the public. Does the general public take note of this? NO! They think anyone labeled a sex offender is a vile and disgusting pervert waiting to devour their children or whatever.

Never mind the fact that you can be labeled a "sex offender" for merely being caught urinating on a dumpster in an alley, or as in a case in Texas, mooning your vice-principal from a passing car.

Then to have news crews creating stings is ridiculous. Let the law do its job, not the media. And if they're not an immediate threat to the community (and believe me, they go to great pains to assess this before release) let them try and lead a normal life. All this crap about people being kicked out of communities or barred from work just because they're a registered sex offender is ridiculous. They're more likely to reoffend if they feel like a cornered animal or a pariah. Let the law do its job without the public feeling they need to put ever-greater restraints on them out of fear.

The greatest threat isn't the sex offender who has been registered and is known to authorities, its the one who either doesn't yet have a victim, or whose victim hasn't yet come forward.

And as for these "internet stings" its only going to take one person to take one of these cases to the Supreme Court to get them all overturned. In ANY criminal case you have to have a victim who can present testimony or evidence of a crime being committed. But since these internet things usually have no underage person receiving these communications (its usually a cop), there's no victim. And if there's no victim, there's no crime. There's very few criminal ordinances out there where you can be found guilty based solely on intent.

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:01 AM
I'm disgusted, that anyone could, would, DARE to claim, that child porn on the net, is a victimless crime.

These images aren't CGI kids and babies, being used as sex toys, but real, suffering, unheard, unrescued human children.

When there was half the great effort put into shutting down child sex rings, as shutting up discussion of it, we'd still hear only a pinch of what goes on.

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:23 AM
He isn't saying that child pornography is a victimless crime. He's saying that when there is an internet sting that arrests someone for child pornography, there is no child involved. It's an ADULT undercover police officer. THAT is what it seems is meant by "no victim" in this case. And they have a point. All of these stings are adults pretending to be children.

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:55 PM
Exactly, Zaphod understands what I meant. Now, if this person started out talking to a child and their family brought in the police to finish the job and nab the predator, then you've got a case, but only if the child testifies. Under due process law, you have the right to face your accuser in court.

However, if the cops REALLY want to do this in a legally unchallengable fashion, they need to act like they're the people selling child porn by mail, the same way they pretend to be dope dealers or prostitutes on the street. Then you get the perp to offer money for child porn and you've got your case. And with all the caselaw for drug and prostitution cases, it will stand up in court.

But as it is, the laws regarding sex crimes are extremely unfair to all involved because they weren't written with any forethought. They were written as a knee-jerk reaction to public outcry, and as a vehicle upon which to rest a political election or re-election campaign. If state senator Jones says "wait a second, I'm not going to pass this legislation until we've had a chance to make sure its fair and just" he's committing political suicide because he'll be painted as soft on sex crimes. When in reality he's just trying to be a responsible legislator.

Here's a prime example scenario. A young man of 25 goes into his favorite college area bar. He sees this sexy blonde hottie out on the dance floor. He decides he wants to talk to her. As he approaches he sees she's got the IKP logo and the word jugalette tattooed on her shoulderblade. So he dances with her a while, they get a table, some drinks, and decide to leave together. They go back to his place and have a wild night of sex, and in the morning she goes home and he never sees her again.

A month later, this guy gets a knock at the door. Its the police, and he's being charged with statutory rape of a 15 year old runaway.

Now, who's the victim?

Is she the victim simply because she's underage, even though she engaged in consensual sex?

Or is he the victim because she lied about her age and meeting her in a bar seemed safe enough?

This one could be a flip of the coin. If the guy can prove she showed a fake ID at the bar, he'll probably get off because he had no reason to believe she wasn't who she said she was, but she'll skate too. But in most states he'll end up taking the fall, particularly if its an election year. No judge or prosecutor wants to look like they're taking the side of a sexual deviant, regardless of the facts of the case.

She could have 2 kids at home and be a raging nymphomaniac, knowing full well what sex is about, and still the law will protect her as though she was as innocent as a babe in the woods. If these laws are to be fair, they need to look at circumstances and dish out punishments on both sides. If she knowingly lies to the man, she should get punished too. And he shouldn't have to be considered a sex offender, even if he's given probation himself.

Another great example is this teacher in Florida who had sex with a 14 year old male student. Have you SEEN HER??? I'd stake a year's salary on that boy running around high-fiving all his friends because he bagged the sexiest teacher in school. And why not? I, and every guy I work with, would have done the same thing had we been in his shoes when we were 14. We'd have been crazy not to. An opportunity to act on our raging hormones with a hot babe who has her own car and home? What teenage boy wouldn't want that? Make the punishment fit the crime as well as the impact (courts DO ask for impact statements before sentencing by the way). In a situation like hers where it was voluntary and the boy isn't emotionally harmed by it, let it go with a bit of probation and a ruling of no contact with the boy.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for capital punishment for violent rapists, pedophiles (that's defined as someone who desires sex with children who have not reached puberty), and incestuous family members who molest their own kin. But we have to temper the law with a bit of humanity and realize that there's a lot of people getting caught up in the gears because the laws paint with a very broad and sometimes indiscriminate brush.

Case in point, in Texas there's a young man who at 17 mooned his vice-principal and was sentenced to probation and required to register as a sex offender for 10 years. Back when I was in school, that would just get you a suspension if they found out who you were and be chalked up to high school hijinks. Also in Texas, there's a TWO YEAR OLD BOY on the sex offender lists. Why? Because he was running around his daycare kissing all the little girls. 20 years ago, that would be considered cute, but quietly discouraged.

So, before you put your opinion behind the next legislative effort to have sex offenders hooked up to GPS, or put on TV, or have their home lit up with a neon sign and a spotlight beacon, just think about what you're really doing. Are you actually making the streets any safer? Or are you just further persecuting someone whose life you actually know nothing about in order to give yourself a false sense of security at the expense of their privacy and normalcy of life?

posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 07:45 AM
"These images aren't CGI kids and babies, being used as sex toys, but real, suffering, unheard, unrescued human children. "

Suzy - what happens when they are CGI kids?? indestinguishable from the real thing? Will it then be Okay to look at??

your post seems to imply that this would be acceptable

posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:06 AM

If the media are concentrating on this type of stuff with the general public, what does it do?

It focus attention at these groups of people and AWAY from another group of people.

Who, on a global basis, is responsible for the greatest exploitation of children? Who takes children and turns them into adults? Who takes children, who don't even know their own identity yet, and makes them pretend they are someone else? Who turns children into later life heroin addicts and alcoholics etc? What industry "accepts" that child pornography is part of it?

You guessed it - the Media. Hollywood has many dark secrets and this is one of them.

How many times have you seen investigations into the media industry re child porn? Yes, you guessed it again, none.

Hope you get the "big picture" now



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 07:33 PM
Your right JS. Hollywood should learn a lesson, and George Carlin should teach these people to do something, and to not use these usually "messed-up"/"possible HS droupouts" other skills then those for entertainment, so they have a life.

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 06:47 AM
I am with you this is way to much! I know it is sad and not a good thing to happen to some one but the media is over doing it. My prisapale sent a letter in the mail to all the patents and last night my mom had a talk with me about it.
This has been happening for years and just know are we trying to do any thing about it and the goverment wants it to all stop A.S.A.P and probley think showing it so much will help. But we still have dumb people in the world and we still have "bad" people in the world so I highly think this si not going to stop.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:48 PM
disgusted, I am with you on this. I agree with pretty much everything you've said, except the internet raids.

While the police officers are pretending to be children, the guy/woman on the other side has no idea that this is not a real conversation. They are under the impression that it is real, and therefore conduct themselves as if it were real. This is bad in itself,... yet when they go a step further, and ask to meet with this "fake" child, they've crossed a boundry. Had this been a real child, and they did end up meeting, who knows what terrible things could have befallen that kid?

By conducting these internet sting operations, they are placing fear in every potential offender, therefore lessening the likelihood of them finding a victim over the Internet. I hope they continue these operations, and I hope that within a few years no adult ever dares set up a real or a sex-based webcam "date" with a minor over the Internet. It isn't right, and it needs to be stopped.

To the original poster; The media is focusing on this subject far too much, because they like what it does to their ratings. Everyone needs to see where this terrible sex-offender lives, and what horrible things he has done. The media had a ball with this subject in the 80's when a teacher and his sons were accused of mollesting the students (Though the father looked particularly guilty because he owned some pornographic material he shouldn't have, his young sons seemed innocent. I believe only one was found not guilty. I heard some of the accusations, and they sounded absolutely ridiculous). Then,....again, some pre-school teachers were accused of abusing the pre-schoolers (they were EVENTUALLY found not guilty). It died down for a while, but once the Westerfield trial began,....all hell broke loose, and it hasn't stopped since. With all those Catholic priests found guilty, it just fed into it. I'm not sure how long this particular phase will last, but I believe the media will milk it for what it is worth, and much more.
Maybe it is a conspiracy, and they're trying to focus our attention in a different place,... and MAYBE it is business/profit-driven, and they're just trying to get better ratings. I think the later seems more plausible.

P.S. It will be a VERY long time before we can get rid of the child-porn industry. It is a sickness, and some of those found guilty of mollesting children have openly admitted that they are sick, and that they would probably do it again if they had the opportunity. Most of them are repeat offenders, and currently cannot be cured. We might put a stop to it within the U.S., but there's still places in this world where they have safe-havens for these people. We're talking kidnapping and selling of children just for this purpose. Until we find the cause, and until we find a way to correct it even before someone is born, I doubt we'll be able to eliminate it.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by 2manyquestions]

top topics


log in