Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ttd_76 t1_j9gbdac wrote

I only care because of the actual children involved in the making of it. If someone has deep fake child porn, or whatever I don't care how much they have or how often they look at it.

Honestly 9 years when there's no evidence that the person has ever had any inappropriate contact with a minor is ridiculous.

−42

Sage_Advice420 t1_j9grldy wrote

>I only care because of the actual children involved in the making of it. If someone has deep fake child porn, or whatever I don't care how much they have or how often they look at it. > >Honestly 9 years when there's no evidence that the person has ever had any inappropriate contact with a minor is ridiculous.

Holy fuck, u/ttd_76, you're actually literally advocating for leniency for a pedophile who has nearly a thousand pictures of toddlers being raped.

You need to take a long hard look at your life, my dude.

24

exposechefjohnny t1_j9h0yld wrote

Do you not understand that there are REAL children in those photos and videos and by purchasing and selling those images Johnny was contributing to the sexual abuse of these children? The more money child pornographers make from producing and selling imagery of children the more children will be trafficked, raped and abused. Not to mention that it is almost impossible to delete these images from the internet. Imagine being in these photos and knowing that sick humans will be using them for pleasure for the rest of your fucking life.

Open your eyes!

13

[deleted] t1_j9h3arv wrote

[removed]

−11

RVAGuywithNoID t1_j9hd2uq wrote

Are you really this fucking stupid?

Non-production offenses like possession are what drive the production.

6

ttd_76 t1_j9hq5xf wrote

Would you make the argument that someone who buys some meth should be charged the same as large meth producer because their possession and use of drugs are what drive the production?

−3

exposechefjohnny t1_j9hsy1e wrote

I don't know what kind of straw man argument you are trying to draw here, but I can only conclude by your sympathizer comments that you are either friends/ family to Johnny or that you yourself have a child porn habit.

To compare drug addiction to child pornography is absolutely inappropriate and wrong. Especially since victims of sex crimes are prone to drug and alcohol addiction. Buying and using drugs do not equate to buying photographs and videos of children being raped or abused.

10

rva-ModTeam t1_j9hq5ol wrote

Your comment has been removed at the discretion of the moderator team.

Please do not re-post this again or post a minimally-revised item similar to this without contacting our moderator team first.

3

BabyBat07 t1_j9jo1ux wrote

So buying and selling images of toddlers being assaulted is cool as long as it’s fake and they’re not actually doing it themselves? That’s some creepy bullshit logic.

3

ttd_76 t1_j9k0i61 wrote

The Supreme Court has held that this is protected free speech under Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition and Ferber vs New York.

−1

exposechefjohnny t1_j9k2b6d wrote

Seriously, what do you have in this fight? The images that Johnny had weren't deep fakes. They were real.

4

ttd_76 t1_j9kd00x wrote

I never said they were. I'm also not the person who created a special username just for this and then complained wrongly I about being banned by an automod.

The sentencing guidelines in child porn are bad. Pick someone other than Maher and I will still say they are bad, under the same username.

−1

exposechefjohnny t1_j9lrq1r wrote

Lol you have to attack me because you're a weak pedo sympathizer. My feelings are so hurt! You really got me there, bud. I also recanted and applauded the mods later because I know when to admit when I'm wrong. Perhaps you should try it.

1

ttd_76 t1_j9mjot2 wrote

Fuck you. So far you've implied that I am unsafe around children, that I have secret pedophilia tendencies, or that I must be a friend of John Maher.

1

exposechefjohnny t1_j9n0mz5 wrote

No thanks, I don't fuck pedo sympathizers.

But in all seriousness, the only reason I've been coming after you is because you keep arguing to lessen the repercussions of the heinous offense here without once acknowledging the real victims of this type of crime. It is such a terrible hill to die on.

You keep comparing a crime that exploits, traffics and harms children to things like drug use and music pirating and frankly it's absolutely appalling and asinine.

Myself and others in this thread have brought you many reasonable rebuttals and you just ignore them and keep doubling down. I even threw you a bone by saying that as disgusting as I find it, I don't think that mere attraction to children should be illegal (which it is not.) But as soon as you start downloading and/or distributing imagery of children being sexually assaulted, even if it is just one photo (it wasn't here), you deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

4

ttd_76 t1_j9n7kdk wrote

These sentences are not doing a single thing to stop sexual abuse of children.

Fuck you.

0

kittyTompkins t1_j9ow5j8 wrote

What if one of the toddlers in the photos or videos were your kid? How much time would be appropriate?

1

ttd_76 t1_j9pr35v wrote

If it were my kid, I would want the death penalty. Which is why victim families shouldn't determine sentences. The amount of time which is appropriate is the amount of time that prevents the most child sexual abuse.

There is research that shows what risk factors lead to higher potential for abuse. The laws and sentencing have almost no relationship with those factors.

Throwing the book at these dudes is easy because they are unsympathetic and it allows people to pat themselves on the back for their self-righteousness. It makes us feel good about ourselves like we did something.

People are stuck on their feels. If I say the punishment for CSAM non-production crimes are too harsh, then I must secretly be a pedophile. But how many times have we also seen it that the people who are most self-righteous and draconian against some behavior end up being the ones who are secretly doing it? Attacking the messenger is stupid.

If I bring up any sort of argument, I get told it's a "fact" that CSAM consumption is different and cannot be compared to anything else. Which is not a fact at all, it's just people refusing to think.

We can study child porn like we study anything else. P2P and Drop Box work the same whether it's CSAM or Game of Thrones. Psychologists can study pedophilia just like they study anything else. There are basic behavioral drives all humans have in common.

There is research on this topic, and experts who study it. The evidence is more and more showing that the way we are dealing with CSAM does nothing to stop child sexual abuse and is more likely making it worse.

0