So how do you feel about the laws that define a photoshopped picture of a willing (paid) 20-year-old model to be kiddie porn? Who is the "victim" in that case?

How about for the rest of my life! I really wished I had not watched that.

As was suggested, this guy needs to be put into Gen Pop and between liking children and being a cop he should have a very interesting time in prison. Sadly, I don't think they put former officers in general population. I could be wrong but I don't think they do.

It is my understanding, and I'd be happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, that in order to be prosecuted for possession of child porn, it is the duty of the state to prove that the pics on your hard-drive contain ACTUAL children. My response was not about your mythical 20-year-old. I said this:

I do have a pretty strong feeling/sense that most of the females in the sex industry are past or present victims of sex abuse. However, that has nothing to do with this case (unless I missed something, and he was actually looking at pics of adult models made to look like children).

UC Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 110 Section 2256
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Note (B) and (C). No actual child necessary.

In fact, I'll give an even more extreme example: a 22-year-old male (very skilled with Photoshop) starts with a picture of himself. (I'm not aware of any actual cases of that, but the law is clear.)

I have a hard time making a felony crime out of someone looking at pictures. I guess we don't have a way to determine a person's thoghts, if we did, I suppose it'd be a crime to even think about kiddies sex.

Lot's of folks probably imagine criminal activity, but normally we just intervene if they actually do something besides having immoral or illegal thoughts.

I hate idea of a cop (or anyone) sitting at home looking at naked pictures with his tongue and other appendage hanging out, but I'd don't know if we should wreck his life for that. I assume very few of these folks ever get caught, or ever act out.

I don't like the porn industry, or "politcal consultants" who are hired to spread obvious lies (think the Nixon "rat fuckers" that industry has obviously grown since then), but I have a hard time with these laws about thoughts. I think it's just morallity. Go after the porn maker for using children, and if you can't catch the porn maker, then, well, you can't.

The marketplace of ideas (sexual or other ideas) is messy, so is democracy, and free enterprise capitalism. Stuff we don't like happens. it's how we decided to live, a tradeoff for individual freedom.

Policing thoughts is wrong. I realize he supports the porn industry, but It's like blaming depositers for bank robbery. Someday it'll be illegal to have more than a small amount of cash, because that encourages robbers.

We can't control people's minds. I'd bet the internet porn laws don't reduce kiddie sex at all.

I value liberty over safety. I also get caught in the act of having double standards sometimes. This is one of those times. Should a person be prosecuted for viewing pictures? Bensdad says no. Should a person be prosecuted for viewing pictures? Bensdad (who is also Taylor's dad) says yes.

Fair answer, that. It's a minefield- where do we draw the line? But thanks for putting it so succinctly.

Don't know. Got kids? Go outside and play a little ball with them. Mull this "line" over while you're at it. Lemme know what you come up with, cuz I seriously do... not... know.

As I tried to point out, having kids changes ones perspective on this issue and many others. In fact, I used to be a pro-choice liberal. Heck, I voted for Clinton.

I don't- though I work with them every day, and have a few "nieces and nephews" I see more often than some members of my real family. I don't pretend I know exactly what having children feels like, but I think I might have some idea.

I've got no answers either- I just was impressed by the way you phrased your post, and your willingness to admit a certain amount of double-standard. I used to be a "pro-choice liberal", too. Now I'm a "pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-corrupt-government raving moderate".

Hey! That's me!! (well, almost). I'm a "Pro-life, pro-gun, anti-corrupt-government raving Libertarian."

This discussion about the porno-cop really is at the heart of the matter. I believe (bet you do, too) that a persons rights extend to the outstretched arms of their neighbor. Did this guy mess with anyone elses world? That's the only real question. He didn't directly cause any damage I guess. I'm just gigantically afraid of what he has the potential to become. You've outed me as a witch-hunter. Thanks a lot.

Yup- I'm in total agreement about the outstretched arms. As a matter of fact, I agree with all of it. As someone who works with kids (and whose career would come to a screeching halt in circumstances anything remotely like porno-cop's), it scares me, too. I kind of think there's two parallel questions here- what do we do with a person (Joe or Jane Average) in this circumstance, and what do we do with someone (a cop, a teacher, etc.) in a position of public trust in this circumstance?

A witch hunter? Naw, you seem far too reasonable (both here and in person) for that. A caring, concerned teacher and parent? Yes- and I'm guessing you'd be "outed" as that with pride.

Don't feel bad, I'm about 4 rows back.

-Mark

Oh, yeah, how about that?