yguy

Then kindly take my comment as being directed at a hypothetical 13 year old other than yourself, as I don't mean to make any gratuitously insolent insinuations.

Enai

In my eyes, it wouldn't be unethical of you to possess pictures of yourself while naked or engaging in sexual acts. I have, however heard of a guy who was prosecuted for possessing (and showing) a naked picture of himself when he was a child. On grounds that "children are porn".

So, I'd like to add my 2 Euro-cents:

There are "child-porn pictures" of me. Namely, I remember:
-lesbian action (my sister and me in a bathtub, bathing)
-playing with feces while costumed (my other sister and me on the toilet and little pot thingie, respectively, while being dressed up for a party. We pee.)
-plain naked pictures (my parents happened to think they had an adorable little baby and saw nothing wrong photographing me. On one picture, I'm running around naked in the garden, like toddlers do in summer. The other one is me when air-bathing as a suckling.)

Possibly, there's more.

I believe it's absurd to outlaw parents from photographing their children's daily activities, regardless how clothed said children are, unless the children object (I didn't as far as I remember). It's even more absurd to then outlaw the subjects of the photos to possess said material.

Oh, and in case anyone wants to know: I wasn't sexually abused as a child. Neither by my parents nor by anyone else. Much later than these pictures were taken, I was molested by a casual acquaintance. I ratted on him to the police, we had an appointment at the court but he didn't show. Nothing happened. I'm not sure whom I hate more: the bastard or the clerk who "lost" the file.

Enai

slh

Hmm...what a letdown. I was really hoping you would reply relevent to the hypothetical presented. What exactly IS your opinion to the hypothetical as presented. Should this supposed youngster be prosecuted? If so, why? How would you, or anyone argue such a case in a court of law if said youngster was arrested and tried for possessing pictures of himself, made by himself, consumed by himself?

Personally, I guess a prosecutor would argue to the letter of the laws, possibly trying to get jurors to ignore the special circumstances and judge accordingly. Defense probably would play up these peculiar circumstances arguing the willfulness of the kid and soforth.

An interesting hypothetical to say the least.

yguy

Not without evidence that he intended to distribute it to others.

keyser_soze

I'm with yguy on this (twice in the same month too), if the hypothetical juvenile is not intending to allow others to see it, there is no justification for prosecution.

Enai

Why does the distribution of pictures a hypothetical child makes of himself while spanking his own monkey constitute a crime? I can't wrap my mind around that concept. The 13 year old would distribute his pictures of his own free will. That wouldn't be a violation of his liberties and rights.

I do believe it is very wrong to seduce/coerce/force children into sexual acts and filming doesn't make it better, but the bad stuff is the lack of consent, not the sexual act. I should maybe add that I also believe in the idea that access to pornographic material makes it less likely for a possible rapist to indeed go for the crime, and thus it is a good thing for children if pedophiles can relieve their urges with the aid of such porn. It would be wrong to distribute pictures of actual children without their consent, though. They are persons and thus have the right to retain their dignity.

Enai

slh

It seems odd, on the surface I guess it might appear that no one is being exploited in this instance. I think where the law would stand is that the 13 year old is not legally able to make the decision to distribute photos of himself, taken by himself. Thus making him a criminal if said images are distributed. I think.

yelyos

That's exactly why I brought it up.

Also, do you think that any blame would be placed on the parents? What would practically happen if distribution occured?

It's something that struck me one day as I was thinking about the issue of child pornography; what would happen if I made it myself? So I decided to get your opinions.

tronvillain

I think that purchasing or creating child pornography should be a significant crime, but that simply looking at or perhaps even possessing child pornography should not be an especially significant crime. Why should it? If you are not actually abusing children or promoting the abuse of children by paying for its product, who are you hurting? No one, expect perhaps people who are disgusted by the thought of you having such materal. Well, perhaps you should be punished in some way for not reporting evidence of a crime, but that is it as far as I can tell.

lunachick

I made this post here to show a correlation between child porn and child sex abuse, and thought it was repeating in this thread.

Just wandering around google with a variety of search words and phrases, and it appears that child prostitution and child-sex tourism/trade is on the increase - third world countries are often the suppliers, with customers often being from the wealthier countries. There are too many links to go into, but you can find them if you look.

Also; in America: -

From here.

Finding of the NIS-3:

• The estimated number of children seriously injured by all forms of maltreatment quadrupled between 1986 and 1993, from 141,700 to 565,000 (a 299% increase).

Considering the Harm Standard:

• The estimated number of sexually abused children increased 83%;
• The number of physically neglected children rose 102%;
• There was a 333 % increase in the estimated number of emotionally neglected children; and
• The estimated number of physically abused children rose 42%

*Girls are sexually abused three times more often than boys.

Survivors

Long term effects of child abuse include fear, anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, poor self esteem, tendency toward substance abuse and difficulty with close relationships (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986).

Clinical findings of adult victims of sexual abuse include problems in interpersonal relationships associated with an underlying mistrust. Generally, adult victims of incest have a severely strained relationship with their parents that is marked by feelings of mistrust, fear, ambivalence, hatred, and betrayal. These feelings may extend to all family members (Tsai and Wagner, 1978).

Guilt is experienced by almost all victims (Tsai and Wagner, 1978).

If a child victim does not resolve the trauma, sexuality may become an area of adult conflict (Courtois & Watts, 1982).

Adults who viewed domestic violence in the home as children have a greater difficulty holding hobs, maintaining relationships with their peers and have a higher risk of developing mental health disorders (Patterson, 1992).

Men appear to be prone to blame themselves for any sexual abuse they may have experienced as children (Mendel, 1993.)

Abusers

It is estimated that approximately 71 % of child sex offenders are under 35 and knew the victim at least causally. About 80 % of these individuals fall within normal intelligence ranges; 59% gain sexual access to their victims through, seduction or enticement (Burgess & Groth, 1984).



And from here.

The Subcommittee has asked whether there is any connection between those who trade or possess child pornography and those who molest children. Based on my experience and based on my consultation with experts who have made it their business to study that connection, my answer is a resounding and alarming - - yes.

The Internet has caused explosive growth in the market for child pornography. The volume of child pornography circulated on the Internet is staggering and the number of persons obtaining, trading and distributing these images is downright appalling. Recently, Operation Candyman uncovered more than 7,200 such traffickers worldwide in a single e-group. The number of e-groups, newsgroups, bulletin boards, and the like that cater to child pornography is enormous. Yet, these facts, and this trend, do not sufficiently capture the gravity of the situation.

Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children. These offenders included a school bus driver, a foster parent, a mentor for underprivileged children, a member of the armed forces, a delivery person, a landscaper, a prison case worker, a janitor, an office manager, a security guard and his wife. This number, though alarming, probably represents only a small fraction of child molestations committed by the more than 7,200 Candyman members - - the vast majority of whom did not make admissions.

My colleagues at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service tell me that, according to statistics compiled from their investigations, a frighteningly high percentage of the child pornography offenders investigated were also involved in the sexual molestation of children. Their studies indicate consistently that, of the total number of child pornographers investigated over the past several years, nearly 40 percent have been determined to be child molesters.

In addition, in November 2000, Dr. Andres E. Hernandez, PsyD., Director of the Sex Offender Treatment Program, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCI Butner, presented the results of his study of child pornography offenders entitled, Self-Reported Contact Sexual Offenses by Participants in the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Sex Offender Treatment Program: Implications for Internet Sex Offenders. This study, among other things, explored the correlation between child pornography offenses and actual child molestation. Dr. Hernandez' data indicates that the majority of the persons in his study convicted of child pornography offenses actually molested significant numbers of children without detection by the criminal justice system. The study also indicated that "these offenders target children in Cyberspace in a similar manner as offenders who prey on children in their neighborhood or nearby park. They seek vulnerable children, gradually groom them, and eventually contact them to perpetrate sexual abuse."

I have attached to my written testimony a summary of the report prepared by Dr. Hernandez. Dr. Hernandez concluded that 76 percent of the child pornographers or travelers (those who travel or intend to travel interstate for the purpose of having sex with a minor) who participated in his study admitted to having committed contact sex crimes which went undetected by the criminal justice system. These offenders had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each. In fact, this group of offenders admitted to having molested a combined total of 1,433 victims without ever having been detected. That is not 1,433 more offenses - - it is 1,433 more victims. If you factor in the number of times they offended against each individual victim, the number would be significantly higher. In addition, while Dr. Hernandez' study lumped child pornographers and travelers in the same category, his data shows that the number of undetected sex crimes was significantly higher for child pornographers than it was for travelers. In short, child pornographers, who consisted of 49 of the 62 subjects, were responsible for the vast majority of the 1,433 victims reported for that group. [The group consisted of 49 Child Pornography Offenders and 13 "Travelers."]

The Subcommittee has asked whether child molesters use child pornography to seduce children. Our experience has shown that the answer to that question is undeniably - - yes. The FBI's Innocent Images Task Force has conducted several hundred online investigations where the agents pose as children. The agents report that sexual predators routinely send images of child pornography to them as part of the grooming process to increase the likelihood of a sexual encounter. The child pornography typically depicts a child of the same age as the Agent's cover having sexual acts with an older man. The purpose behind this is clearly to lower the inhibitions of the person the offender believes is a child and to convince the child that the activity is fun and acceptable.

Specifically, we have found that child pornography is used by child molesters to:

• Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.
• Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.
• Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.
• Groom them into a sexual relationship.

Some offenders take advantage of the fact that some children are curious about sex. They show them images which appear to depict other children enjoying sexual activities with adults to encourage their victims to engage in sex. Others take advantage of the guilt and shame commonly experienced by their victims by taking pictures or videos of the sexual activities with their child victims to use as an insurance policy against disclosure by them.

The Subcommittee has asked whether child pornography seduces child pornographers to molest children. It definitely has that effect on some of the collectors. Those who trade in child pornography participate in organized (like "Candyman") or informal (chat rooms, F-serves, news groups, bulletin boards, Web sites, etc.) networks of like-minded individuals, which serve as support groups. That these individuals can easily find, identify with, correspond with, and trade child pornography with each other, gives them comfort in the fact that they are not alone and tends to validate their offending behavior. They feel they are part of a vast network of like-minded people who believe it is acceptable to engage in sexual fantasies about children, thus lowering their inhibitions about acting on their fantasies and increasing the likelihood that they will actually molest children.

The best indicator of future behavior is a pattern of past behavior. The next best indicator of future behavior is what an individual wants to do. Some individuals may be sexually aroused by viewing images depicting nude children but are repulsed by seeing images depicting an adult interacting with a child sexually. Others might enjoy viewing images depicting nude children but are more excited by viewing depictions of children "playing" sexually with other children. Others still are aroused by viewing any image depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, but are most aroused when viewing images depicting children engaged in sexual acts with adults.

An individual's child pornography collection is the best indicator of what he is fantasizing about. In turn, an individual's fantasies are the best indicators of what he wishes to do. Therefore, those who collect images depicting adults engaging in sexually explicit conduct with children are the most likely to molest children.

I am aware of no real evidence that child pornography alone induces a sexual attraction to children where the offender lacks a sexual predisposition for children. However, when used by individuals who have a predisposed sexual interest in children, child pornography can sexually arouse them, fuel their sexual fantasies about children, validate their sexual attraction to children, and help them rationalize this behavior. All of these behaviors increase the risk that these individuals will act out their fantasies by sexually molesting children.

Our practical experience confirms these findings. The FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit has conducted interview upon interview of child sex offenders. The information obtained from the offenders themselves leaves no doubt that child pornography fuels some child pornographers to live out their fantasies on real children.

The Subcommittee has asked about the technology for creating computer-images of "virtual" children and the effect of the technology on our ability to prosecute child pornographers. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the significant impediments that exist to the successful prosecution of child pornography cases and will explain why the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Free Speech Coalition further hinders our ability to bring these dangerous predators to justice. Before I begin this discussion, let me make two points very clear: (1) there is no evidence to suggest that the child pornography circulating on the Internet today depicts anything but real children; and (2) law enforcement agents have only been able to successfully identify a minute fraction of those child victims.

Technological advances in the area of computer imaging have sparked a debate about the possibility of creating images of child pornography without the use of real children - - which I will refer to as completely computer-generated images. The question is whether such images can be created that are indistinguishable to a jury, and even to an expert, from the images of real children.

This technological debate has led the defense bar to challenge the reality of the images of child pornography, insisting that the government disprove that the images are completely computer-generated to gain a conviction. Despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that these images on the Internet do not involve actual child victims, this ready-made defense has had a dramatic impact on the government's ability to prosecute child pornography offenders.

We have already had a glimpse of the practical effect of the Court's decision. Since 1999, when the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Free Speech Coalition, there has been a significant adverse effect on prosecutions in that circuit. Since that decision, no prosecution has been brought in the Ninth Circuit, with few exceptions, except in the most clear-cut cases in which the government can specifically identify the child in the image. As I noted earlier, such cases are relatively infrequent. Of course, the Court's decision does not require us to identify the child depicted, and we are committed to pursuing viable child pornography cases even when the actual victim is unknown. But the understandable reaction of front-line prosecutors in the Ninth Circuit vividly underscores that the practical problems with proving particular cases will be significant.

This result has not been limited to the Ninth Circuit. Other districts have also proceeded cautiously in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision. Although I have no figures for you today, from my discussions with prosecutors and fellow agents, I can say that the number of prosecutions never brought is significant. That number is going to increase exponentially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition. While the FBI and the Department of Justice are committed to pursuing these cases - - even where the children are not identified - - I fear that in many cases, this speculative technological debate will indeed result in a bitter end.

There are strong reasons to believe that the images of child pornography circulating on the Internet today almost universally involve actual child victims. Leading experts in the field have told us that it would take an investment of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars in research and equipment, not to mention somebody with the type of talent that would guarantee a lucrative career in Hollywood, to produce an indistinguishable, completely computer-generated image of a child engaging in explicit sexual conduct. While consultations with leading experts in the area indicate that the technology exists that might theoretically allow for the creation of such images, it is highly improbable that the producers of child pornography currently possess such resources. Sadly, it is still far cheaper, less time consuming, and easier for child pornographers to use real children to create a high-quality product for distribution.

Moreover, just because it is highly unlikely that the producers of pornography possess the resources or the technology to create a new, completely computer-generated image that would fool a competent expert into believing that it is an image that depicts a real child, that does not mean that the Free Speech Coalition case, if unredressed, will not pose a substantial impediment to child pornography prosecutions now and in the future. Ironically, while it may be difficult to fool an expert with a new image, the same cannot always be said for an old image. Child pornography circulating on the Internet has, by definition, been digitally uploaded or scanned into computers and has been transferred over the Internet, usually in different file formats, from trafficker to trafficker. An image seized from a collector of child pornography is rarely a first-generation product; it may be the 1,000th generation. It is often difficult, if not impossible, for experts to discern which generation of a particular image is on an individual's computer. With each transmission, the "DNA" of the image undergoes a subtle alteration, which can make it impossible for an expert to conclusively opine that a particular image depicts a real child. If the original image has been scanned from a paper version into a digital format, this task can be even harder since proper forensic delineation may depend on the quality of the image scanned and the tools used to scan it. Therefore, despite the overwhelming probability that images of child pornography do come from real children, the inability of an expert to state as a matter of scientific certainty that a given image seized from a defendant's computer is a picture of an identifiable child, will severely undermine our ability to bring these perpetrators to justice.

Because of the ready-made nature of the "virtual image" defense to child pornography charges, I am reasonably certain that, in the future, in cases in which the child victim remains unidentified, child pornography prosecutions will devolve into a "battle of the experts" that will sufficiently confuse jurors and place our prosecutions at risk. The number of competent experts in the field is few. Because of the limited number of experts involved and the considerable costs entailed in retaining such experts, assuming their availability, and because of the difficulties that face such experts in reaching definitive conclusions when confronted with images that have been propagated through multiple generations over the Web, the foreseeable and tragic result will be that offenders who possess images of real, but unidentified, children will escape prosecution and will continue to use such material to harm still more innocent children. Indeed, in a motion to dismiss filed the day after the Supreme Court's decision, one alleged offender has even insisted on the return of his cherished collection of child pornography, in addition to dismissal of the charges pending against him.

Let me add that, while there is no evidence to suggest that completely computer-generated images of child pornography actually exist on the Internet, this does not mean that a well-done completely computer-generated image would not be harmful to real children. To the lay person, including the vast majority of child predators and vulnerable children, such images may more than suffice for the pernicious task at hand. There is every reason to believe that offenders who obtain and distribute such images on the Internet can and will use them in much the same manner that they currently use images with real child victims, that is, to fuel their fantasies, to whet their appetites for real children, and to groom real and vulnerable children for sexual encounters by lowering their inhibitions, desensitizing them to the sexual acts, and convincing them that the behavior is acceptable and fun. In short, there is no legitimate place in our society for lifelike, photo-quality images of children engaging in explicit sexual conduct, whether that image involves a real child who has already been victimized or is a seemingly-indistinguishable image that is used to entice innocent and vulnerable children into becoming real victims themselves.

The Subcommittee has also asked me to explain two concepts: morphed imagery and composited imagery. "Morphing" refers to a software process in which one image is transformed into another over a period of time. This term of art is commonly, and erroneously, used to refer to generic digital image manipulations, but it actually refers to a fairly simple process. The software works simply by moving pixels, or individual picture elements, while changing their color. Take the example of two pictures, one of a man frowning, and one of a man smiling. The computer operator wishes to animate the transition between these two facial expressions. First, the operator would define shapes on the start and end images, to tell the software that the mouth is the primary changing feature between the faces. The software then calculates the in-between mouth positions, and generates the frames to show the transition. While the end result might be interesting, it does not capture the minute but detectable nuances of human expression. While it would be possible to morph two entirely unlike images, such as a child and an adult, the end result would not be a believable hybrid of the two. Morphing only works well if the source images are extremely similar.

"Compositing" refers to the digital combination of multiple photographic images into a single image, in effect cutting up different photographic prints and then gluing the pieces together to create a new collage image. The process is simple, and the software to do it is readily available. However, just as cutting a picture from a magazine and gluing it over a family snapshot will not create a believable end product, neither is digital compositing the magic solution to artificially creating images. Retouching is a subset of compositing, in which one uses digital paint tools to modify a digital photograph. Magazines "clean up" photographs of models by air brushing out blemishes, for instance. While an expert can certainly alter a photograph in this way with results that may fool a lay person, a competent expert can discern the difference between the two. Extensive retouching leads to an airbrushed, overly smooth look to the picture, as all the natural detail becomes obscured. Nevertheless, determining whether an actual minor was used in an image where compositing is alleged or uncovered may be difficult, because forensic investigators have only a portion of the child victim's anatomy to inspect and, thus, fewer investigative clues are available.

The Subcommittee has asked that I comment on the threat to children posed by the sex tourism industry. Sex tourism appears to be a growing problem in countries where large segments of the population live in poverty. During the last few years the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have received increasing requests for training and advice on combatting this problem. Of course, children are severely threatened by sex tourism. Sex tourists are often under the impression that it is "safer" to have sex with a child than an adult prostitute, and some adult men do actively seek out young female or male sex partners.

etc, etc...