I think you are right. However, is it illegal to view pictures of murdered children? If not, why not? How about just plain old violence against children? Illegal to view a child being punched? That obviously can be a lot more harmful than plenty of sex things. That can kill a victim. Is viewing that illegal? To me, that is where the nonsense of CP fails.

And of course, why isn’t it a crime to view an adult being harmed? Viewing either hurts people or it doesn’t. It can’t just be about sex.

Exactly— more resources need to be devoted to the development of software that locates and zaps, less resources to locking up former viewers for excessive periods or policing those who have successfully completed treatment.

Jacob, I agree with everything you are saying, and FAC is not trying to decriminalize it. What law enforcement is doing, though, is not really helping the situation. There are better ways at stopping the problem. This is only my personal opinion and not necessarily the opinion of others in FAC.

I am old enough to remember when viewing any type of pornography was illegal. Then came the internet and changed everything. I can remember hearing on the news that viewing adult pornography would no longer be illegal in Florida because an estimated 17,000 people were online viewing it — too many for law enforcement to keep up with.

I see the same thing happening with viewing CP — too many to catch them all, let alone find the prison space for them. But CP is too horrific to ignore, so law enforcement needs to start thinking “out of the box” — what would really help to stop the problem? — it’s not what they are doing now. Again, just my own personal opinion.

Yes, and I read that at that particular time, the FBI had put out more CP online in the state of Florida than any other source had. So the FBI victimized more children than any other source at that time. The FBI came under so much public criticism that they had to take a lot of it down — hopefully all of it.

The public largely sees CP viewing as a “real” crime in and of itself. If we make a public suggestion to the contrary, we can expect pushback. I think FAC’s position is that we do not condone sex crimes of any kind.

Now, it’s true that production— often done by someone close to the victim, as you point out— is more serious. But that difference is already addressed in Federal sentencing.

No question that going after viewers hardly puts a dent in the supply of such material. But, again, the public and most prosecutors see viewing as its own crime, a hurtful form of exploitation that is less than production but nevertheless a choice that should have consequences. Are sentences too long for viewers? Probably in many cases, but that’s a different question than whether viewing is a “real” crime or not. I have worked with a number of former viewers, all of them regretted viewing and none of them felt viewing should be decriminalized (though they were shocked at their sentences and collateral consequences).

This addresses only a small piece of our feedback towards the Miami Herald, of course. The rest of it reminded me how grateful I am to our Media Committee.

So thank you for this small opportunity to influence and fine-tune the message coming out of our Media Committee.

Lets not ignore another possibility. The government does not want to curb the supply because it produces more arrests of “viewers”. It’s literally the bait they allow to remain out there despite numerous available technologies that can flag and block these images. Not only do they allow it to remain out there, but for a period ending in 2014 the FBI literally operated “PlayPen”, which was one of the largest portals for this content.

Jacob and others, I continue to believe that what law enforcement is doing in spending most of their efforts in catching viewers/possessors to try to reign in CP is not working.

“One study of 150 adult survivors, who indicated they had appeared in sexual abuse material as children, found 42% identified their biological or adoptive/stepfather as the primary offender. More than two-thirds of such images appear to have been made at home.”

We all agree this is sickening and horrible, but catching what is probably a small percentage of the viewers/possessors will do nothing to stop CP while these parent figures, for the most part, remain unscathed. All resource should be put on finding these individuals — to stop the problem at the source. Just my opinion.

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-parents-major-child-sexual-abuse.html

An attempt is also a federal crime, and perhaps in the state. 18 USC 2251(a) says “Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in….” This means the production does not actually need to occur. The 50 years could be applicable if he had a prior conviction. The lesson is, don’t even consider it.

Veritas.

18 USC Chapter 110 contains CP statutes including the ones below.

18 USC 2252(a)(4) CP Possession. Sentencing is in 2252(b)(2)
–max 10 years for possession normally.
–max 20 years If there is a child under 12.
–min 10 years, max 20 years If there is a prior conviction for CP, sexual abuse (18 USC chapter 109A), obscenity (18 USC ch 71), or transportation for illegal sex (18 USC ch 117), or any equivalent state or military convictions.

18 USC 2255(a)(1),(2),(3) CP Sales or Distribution. Sentencing is in 2252(b)(1)
–min 5 years, max 15 years
–min 15 years, max 40 years If prior convictions above apply.

Production is covered in 18 USC 2251, and penalties (2251(e)) are VERY severe–as they should be.
–min 15 years, max 30 years
–min 25 years, max 50 years if 1 prior conviction as described above
–min 35 years, max life if 2 or more prior convictions

The complicating factors with the feds are the sentencing guidelines where prosecutors can enhance the recommended sentencing range with numerous and often obscure factors.

Veritas (I hope I got it all right).

‘Once a person is chosen by the government to have CP placed on their computer—‘

How does it work? What is the government agency that makes this selection? What is the review process that this decision goes through? What agency carries out the order to make that placement? And how can the public protect their computers from such things?

How do they get an arrest warrant before they’ve even executed a search warrant for the computer that’s supposedly infected?

How does the prosecutor prove to a jury that the possession of such material was knowing and willful, if it was placed there by the government?

If you are accusing Dr Babu of fraud, have you brought a complaint to the state medical licensing board?

Also everyone, can we use more caution when using this platform to accuse a named individual of fraud.