(FORUM) Is child porn less serious when it’s easy to access?


The following is commentary intended for discussion. Add your comments.

In today’s confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Jackson, she indicated that she considers child pornography a very serious and despicable crime.

However, she indicated (my interpretation) that distributing or viewing thousands of images in a matter of minutes via the Internet is a less serious crime than child pornography distributed via US mail, which takes far more time.

Is child porn less serious because it is easy to access so many images? Or is it even more serious? Or neither?

One more point: according to some of the cases at issue, the children were not only sexually abused, but were also victims of additional violence in the horrifying pornographic images.

What are your comments?


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

29 thoughts on “(FORUM) Is child porn less serious when it’s easy to access?”

  1. Pornography is addictive, and porn addiction affects both men and women. Truthfully, I am a woman who has actually struggled with it myself. I do NOT go out looking for porn. But what does happen to me, regularly, is that I am shown inappropriate sexual images in Google advertisements, which–for lack of a better word–sets the hook. I exercise a great deal of restraint to get away from the temptation that ensues. I do not want to go seeking inappropriate images, but the curiosity switch gets flicked with images that I do not even ask to see. Now, as a mom with young boys, I am EXTREMELY worried about this effect on THEM. They don’t have the maturity, the self control, or the reasonable judgement that I have. If it’s this difficult for me to stay away from porn, how hard will it be for them?

    I’d like to also add a description here. I have several problems with what I see in ads online. For instance, while reading Fox News, the Google Ad spot that shows up is a picture of a cute young woman with large perky breasts in a wet T-shirt. You can clearly see nipples. Now… I am trying to read a news article and not look at this thing, but then in a small animation, the boobs pop out at me, which draws my attention to them. I click “Ad Choices” and report it as “inappropriate.” Well, next thing I know, ALL THE ADS I see from there on out are that EXACT ad. I want to avoid it, I want to turn it off. I want it off my screen. But the more I try to get away from it, the more it pursues my attention! Ads are designed to draw you in. And sexually explicit ad materials are doing just that! I’m not alone in this experience, am I?

    As a woman, I’m going to be honest, it’s not like I don’t experience temptation or lust. But I don’t want to go there. Again, if it’s hard for me, how much harder could it be for my young boys as they come into adolescence? This scares me because I don’t want my young sons to become addicted to pornography. It’s a raging problem amongst men in America. It ruins marriages. It ruins sexual experiences for them, which they are supposed to grow into. Why would holding hands thrill a 13 year old boy, when that boy is feasting his imagination on anal sex online? His threshold for arousal is pressed so high at that point, that he can’t get pleasure out of the little things. This in turn leads to dangerous behaviors, like children pressuring each other to try harmful and painful forms of sex (like anal). Year ago, already, Teen Vogue got into trouble for doing a long article on “how to have anal sex.” A mom exposed this article online by posting a facebook video of herself reading the article out loud and burning it in a bon fire, page-by-page. How to kids become interested in sexually deviant (or to put it mildly, very adult subject matter) at the tender age of 12 or 13? Through online pornography guys. With the help of such noble institutions as Teen Vogue.

    Get it out of your life, and keep it out! But how?????????

    1. You may never be able to get it out entirely, but here are the steps I’ve used to almost completely eliminate it.

      I use Firefox as my primary browser and I use some add ons or extensions. Privacy Badger from EFF, and uBlock Origin, both are free and easy to set up and use.

      Firefox has a feature built in called containers, or Multi account containers, where I can isolate certain websites and put them in their own separate browser (for lack of a better word). So, for instance I put Amazon and other shopping sites in a shopping container and they won’t be able to see where else I go on the net.

      After I installed and activated them I cleared by browsing history and cookies completely. I did have to re-login to all the sites where I had saved logins, including reauthenticating on them. Clearing the cookies not only deletes most (if not all) of the tracking cookies, but logins are saved using cookies too, so those get wiped out.

      Since I’ve done those I get very few ads at all, though some still get through

      There may be similar addons for Chrome or Edge, I don’t use them unless I absolutely have to, but you can check it out if one of those are your primary browser.

      1. Thanks for this information. I use DuckDuckGo on my phone but not on my laptop (Mac) which is very easy to hack apparently.

    2. You make very good points.. everyone is inundated with these things online with all the tracking across browsing history, and it’s definitely destructive to bonded relationships. The people that railed against it we’re mocked as religious fanatics. With all that being said, who can tell the difference between 17 and 18 in any of that? Or worse, if you go against the pinko government, they actually plant things on your computer like they did to Sharyl.. I think the biggest problem is porn being so accessible.

  2. Child porn is always serious, regardless of how easy it is to access. I think digital access though is far more harmful, far more serious, simply because of the speed and persistence of it. Once a photo hits the net it will last for forever, and it can spread in seconds. People will copy or save it, then share it. They can do this far more easily and quickly than with analog means of distribution.

    Child porn though is very insidious and we’re gradually desensitized to it. Child beauty pageants where young girls are dressed up as adults and told to act and dance like adults. On example comes to mind is “Little Miss Sunshine” where at the end a 7 year old girl, dressed up like an adult, does a strip-tease without actually removing her clothes. Several people I knew (both male and female) thought the movie was “great” and “awesome”.

  3. How can one say “misinformation is dangerous” or “hate words are dangerous” on the Internet, but then argue that online child pornography isn’t as big a deal?

    Our administration and corporate leadership claim both of those positions.

  4. One question that generally seems to be overlooked is the degree of causative link between the viewing of an image and the actual act of violence.

    Let’s compare it to another crime, and then consider the similarities and differences. Suppose a bank robbery occurs, and suppose someone takes pictures of the bank robbery, and distributes them on the internet. We do not generally regard the viewing of images of a bank robbery as being an additional crime beyond the bank robbery, because we do not regard a person who views an image of a bank robbery as causing others to commit bank robbery. If there is a link, it is unclear.

    We regard the viewing of child pornography as different, because it can cause additional embarrassment to the child if she is ever recognized in real life. They said 6000 images, but it is not known if that is 6000 images of hard-core child pornography or 5999 images of children that were improper but not active abuse, and one that was.

    Suppose a child was photographed, and pictures were made, and 100,000 men over the world saw a picture of it. And suppose it became possible to identify the 100,000. Should all 100,000 men be imprisoned for say, thirty years? In the old days, obtaining such pictures required greater effort.

    I am opposed to her confirmation because of the probability that she supports abortion, but, not knowing all of the details of her reasoning on the case, I am not so sure it means that she is soft on child abuse.

    1. First off, it doesn’t cause “embarrassment” to the victim when images of the sexual abuse are distributed and seen around the world. It causes severe, psychological trauma. Your analogy of a bank robbery shows ignorance of what the actual crime is.

      Secondly, when a Federal prosecution says 6000 images, it means 6000 images of child sexual abuse, not some photos of your 17 year old babysitter.

      I pray you don’t have children, or access to any. You have some issues.

    2. “Suppose a child was photographed, and pictures were made, and 100,000 men over the world saw a picture of it.” How did they “see” the picture? My take is that they not only saw the picture, but downloaded and saved it. In that case, yes, all 100,000 of them should be prosecuted. It’s not against any law to “see” something, but to “own” it means you accept it and want it.

      I rest my case.

  5. In addition, it’s a false argument to make. For example:
    Is murder less serious if there are more weapons (or more victims available). Is robbery less serious if there is more money available to steal. Is vehicular homicide less serious if there is more traffic.
    Child rape is sadistic and evil, and her judgements indicate she is an apologist for this crime. Her statements trying to “explain” it serve to further illustrate her judicial and intellectual mediocrity. Pitiful choice for this high position. Using the internet to increase distribution makes it more serious not less. Thank you for this forum!

      1. People are not normally titillated by videos of robberies or homicides (except for those attracted to snuff videos, which also ought to be illegal). Child porn is in an entirely different category. The only people who defend it are those who either like viewing it themselves or are in thrall to those who do. And there is an extremely strong connection between viewing child porn and actual child abuse.

        Of course, the same is true for adult pornography, which never should have been legalized because it is entirely destructive.

  6. I agree with other poster feedback on this matters. Big tech and Browser search engines could engineer a algarythm software to stop this activity along with other cyber crime activity links and Data brokers hiding in the back of your Browsers but they are the Biggest Enablelers of cyber crime and should be held legally responsible for Fake security and communications anti-trust violations.. The FBI cyber crime unit should be holding the Browser search engine companies also responsible for enable the distribution of graphic child porno images as a accessories to these crimes also.. These goofy law makers in the past 25 years continue to not want to pass a cyber crime Bill to clean up the Internet and hold Big tech search engines and Data brokers hiding in the background exploiting us all ? Search engines off and on in past also has redirected some of my searches to other porn sites.. Devices and the Internet has become a Brothel of cyber crime activity taking advantage of you me and your kids..Given all this info in reality think about this statement ? All this cyber crime abuse I don’t think even Bernie Madoff himself would change a thing if he designed it exactly the same ? Speed Bump ??

  7. This idea that it’s easy to get is a false premise. You can’t just google child porn and get some results. I work in the IT field and have had to report computers to the police. You have to know how to go to the dark web. You have to know of a site on the dark web that has that material to start with. You have to know how to connect to the dark web before that. There are so many things you must know how to do before you can get to that crap. That’s not even talking about security measures a person needs to take to prevent getting caught or getting hacked on the dark web. Anyone that thinks it’s readily available is naive or lying.

    What I do get concerned with is how vulnerable people’s computers are and how easy it is for hackers to use their computers for distribution servers. Innocent people that are not security wise can get accused of having that trash simply because their computer got hacked, and they would never know it was on there until they take their computer in because it’s running slow. One would hope computer forensics could tell the difference between a criminal and a victim, but it may not always be easy to tell.

    1. This is an example of where the law can be heavy handed. I would think that skilled interrogation would reveal whether a person unknowingly had images in the background, and that if truly unknowing the person would not be held responsible. But the way law is used and abused these days, no one can count on fair and just treatment once they’re in the system.

    2. TQ for this explanation. however, there’s also the element of choice: general, public advertisements often contain explicit sexual imagery, which is very concerning, because we have very little choice not to see this type of ads and they present the message that sex is OK – but the OK should not be happening publicly or commercially, but on a personal level (‘informed consent’, anyone?).
      marketing teens is as off the mark as going full sex-ed in elementary school for the youngest children, because it takes away their natural process of coming-of-age. again, no choice (“just do it”).
      those who want to go to the dark web, can and will. but those who don’t want to be confronted with the explicit sexual imagery often can’t get away from it. to top off this rant it should also be said that industrial, mass-produced images of girls’ nipples through a wet T-shirt expess an imbalanced and biased gender preference, as if that’s the way girls (should) behave and everybody gets confused when in real life that’s not the case. bottom line: let children be children, untill they’re not.

  8. The easier it is to obtain, the worse the crime if you ask me. The greater the number of images, The stiffer the sentence should be. Just remember, children were exploited to create these images in the first place. Ketanji Brown Jackson should be ashamed of herself for her views on this, unfortunately she won’t be.

    1. The FBI and state police are making a fortune by baiting people with known images they have in their stock pile. They are “distributing” the same images they say they are trying to protect children from. They take computers, phones and accounts and use them to fish out more people. It’s a money making machine. Once the person is prosecuted the victims if identified get restitution some times in the thousand for each offense. Some of these people are now older and still collecting from the images that are still being circulating by the government. Since the war on drugs has taken a hit because of the legalization of weed the prisons are losing money and need a new way to keep them full. We will see a whole generation of new young people being in prisoned because of the child porn laws. The sex offender roasters are grown expediently. I feel for the victims but you need to follow the money and see why this is such an epidemic now., The justices in most of these cases have no choice but to sentence these people to long term sentences because of the mandatory minimums.
      A young man who is 18 that has a nude of his girlfriend who is 17 is looking at 5 years minimum if prosecuted. They call these the Romeo and Juliet cases which are still prosecuted. That young man will have to register as a sex offender his entire life. These law are disproportionate and need a serious make over. Sex addition is just like any other addiction. And no one is addressing the mental health behind any of this.,

  9. As a criminal defense attorney who has represented clients who have have done nothing more than viewed and collected these images – they have not created them, they have not physically harmed a child, they have not sold it, they have not sent it to others, they have simply accessed pictures and videos thru about 3 clicks of a computer keyboard – I view these crimes as one step away from criminalizing simple thought. As despicable as those thoughts and images are we have to ask does it deserve the many years in prison that about 3 clicks of a computer keyboard can access. As much as I am against this nomination for many of her other views I do not oppose her nomination for this particular opinion.

  10. Ketanji made porn a family friendly movie night. Internet porn is free and mail order porn you pay for. Must be Ketanji Brown Jackson does not want to forfeit her royalties for her porn sales. She will not be remembered in history for the first black women on the unSupreme Court. She wouldn’t have been shortlisted if she were not black (a token for politically woke) and she is not convinced she is a woman.

  11. Reasonable people could disagree about the appropriate sentencing for viewing child porn images. However, policies should be informed by practical considerations as well as moral. Should we spend our limited resources prosecuting viewers of the images or the perps who actually abuse children to make the images?

    1. demand and supply, a never-ending story. however there should be a choice not to have to see commercially produced sexually explicit images. when we want to see them, we’ll look for them, but let’s not have to defend ourselves against the opposite, i.e. they’re there and if you don’t want to see them, tough luck.

  12. Let’s call it what it is and what it is not-it is not “porn”. It is a crime scene video or picture of child being sexually abused by an adult. The slippery slope that the left has greased is finally catching up to us.

    Criminals know the truth about this crime and crimes against children-there is no hope for the individuals. Once they have gone over the line to the point where they are cataloging and sharing child pornography, or abusing children, there is no resetting that clock.

    As a society, we have slid so far that some people actually argue FOR images of child sexual abuse being acceptable? I suspect this is alot what Sodom and Gomorrah looked like.

  13. “Is child porn less serious because it is easy to access so many images? Or is it even more serious? Or neither?
    One more point: according to some of the cases at issue, the children were not only sexually abused, but were also victims of additional violence in the horrifying pornographic images.”

    Not at all. If an individual is searching for and watching child porn the speed they can view has nothing to do with the crime of watching and the crime committed to these children. The speed actually helps view more images allowing the person to find what they want to view faster to save or down load or purchase. The violence done to these children should be punished in the harshest of ways.

  14. This child porn enabler will go full bore once the democrats and three republicrats put her on the supreme court. She will no longer have to lie and obfuscate and will proudly make her tranny recognition as a matter of law.The tail will wag the dog in America once again.

Scroll to Top