It seems to me that the real problem here is legislators that are not content with laws that punish real crimes. Congress has repeatedly passed laws that seek to inflict punishment on those who have not committed an offense but have the audacity to simulate it in speech, graphic depiction, or other representation. Because the behavior elicits the opposite of sympathy such thought crimes are deemed deserved merely because of there reprehensible nature even though no victim or real crime exists.

I hate child porn and as a legitimate pornographer, I won't even talk to a potential model unless they can prove that they are at least 18 years of age.

With that said, I too have an issue with what is basically a thought crime. Think of all of those episodes of After School Specials, Dawson's Creek, hell, even Doogie Howser, MD where it was "depicted" that those under the age of 18 were having sex, even though the actual actors were aged 18 years of age or older. Under this law, everyone who viewed those episodes would be guilty and so would the producers.

But this concept of finding someone guilty of a thought crime is what has lead us to catching "internet predators". Don't get me wrong, I believe that they are out there, but the way we go after them is basically getting them for thought crimes.

Take the "To Catch A Predator" series that seemed to be on television every night on NBC. People posing as minors would ensnare (entrap) those who were willing to have sex with said "minor". The person shows up, only to find an NBC television crew and the police and are arrested. What crime was actually committed? And if the person who answered the "Lolita's" call are supposedly guilty of a crime, under this law, wouldn't the people posing as the "minor" be guilty as well?

We, as a society, need to decide if we truly want to prosecute people for thinking about something that if truly committed would be a crime or do we go after those who truly commit crimes?

I expect that the statute contains an exception for law enforcement efforts.

As for what crime was committed, I imagine that it would be punished as attempted statutory rape.

Tom_Tildrum:

I expect that the statute contains an exception for law enforcement efforts.

As for what crime was committed, I imagine that it would be punished as attempted statutory rape.

So, a person who agreed to meet a fictional "minor" shows up at said "minor's" door and that is enough to charge them with "attempted statutory rape", even if there wasn't an actual "victim" of said "attempted statutory rape" ? Doesn't that seem just a bit twisted?

No more than picking up a prostitute for solicitation. No sex act has taken place but an agreement to engage in the act has been made. It is kind of like threatening to kill someone.

Good answer, TR.

It seems like pandering in the prostitution sense or threatening to kill someone is different than what can be criminalized here. There are no circumstances where the real deal in those cases is actually legal. Here, you can get tagged for saying something that "reflects the belief" that you've got something kiddie pornographic, even if its the Sears childrens underwear ads. Pretty broad.

phxjustice:

So, a person who agreed to meet a fictional "minor" shows up at said "minor's" door and that is enough to charge them with "attempted statutory rape", even if there wasn't an actual "victim" of said "attempted statutory rape" ? Doesn't that seem just a bit twisted?

There were, if I recall, several men who arrived with lube and so forth. I don't think you mean to argue that even those with such clear intent should be ignored. The problem is with the manner in which they were lured, as well as a host of other legal problems with what Dateline NBC was up to.

Here are a couple of references you might find useful:

This Esquire article from September 2007 describes a specific and widely condemned episode of the aforementioned program.

In this Slate article from October 2006, William Saletan (aka Human Nature), after he has weighed in on the Mark Foley/Bill Clinton hypocrisy (doesn't that all seem like ages ago?), goes on to express reservations about the prosecution of virtual sex crimes. Of course, I do understand the difference between sending sexually explicit e-mail (as awful as that may be) and showing up at a place where one believes sex with a minor will occur. I included this link because in neither case does any actual physical sex take place.

The only way to justify fake kiddie porn is to also accept the real thing. There is a link between real kiddie porn and sexual predation. Explain how the "thought" process is different with fake kiddie porn.

"The only way to justify fake kiddie porn is to also accept the real thing."

Why? They're not the same thing. The real thing has a victim. The fake stuff doesn't.

"There is a link between real kiddie porn and sexual predation."

But is it a causal link? If not, banning fake kiddie porn isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.

"Explain how the "thought" process is different with fake kiddie porn."

What "thought process" are you referring to?

No, real kiddie porn has more than one victim. The child used to make the porn and child molested by the predator who watches it. That link is not casual.

The accusation is that fake kiddie porn is the thought police. I am just asking how the thought process of a sexual predator watching real v fake is different. Both go to the issue of mens rea.

The word I used is 'causal', not 'casual'. Look it up.

There's a fine line between "entrapment" and a sting operation. Maybe the guy showing up thinking he was about to have sex with a young girl hadn't actually committed the crime yet, but that's the point of a sting operation. The hypothetical sting-ee isn't being arrested for saying he's attracted to 14 year old girls in a chat room. He is being arrested for going out with the intention of meeting an underage girl for sex. It wasn't a crime until he actually went out in search of the underage girl. He then crossed over from thinking about it to actually doing it.

Here's how I see it. If a dirty old man is sitting in front of a computer talking about sex with other willing talkers, then, right or wrong, it is not a crime under the first ammendment. However, it becomes a crime when said pervert actively seeks out real sex with underage girls. Neither is exactly moral, but I see a clear difference in one being a crime vs. the other.

Planning to kill someone, or solicitation of prostitution, involves actual intent to do something that is a real crime. It's not simply talking or thinking about it. Prosecution of such things (including conspiracy to commit any crime) always involves proving (to a jury) that there was real intent to follow through.

We don't prosecute people for owning child porn because we believe that looking at it will induce them to actually sexually abuse a child. We prosecute them because their buying those materials (and we can't tell they didn't buy them) economically stimulates the production of more, so some other child is now getting sexually abused and filmed to satisfy the appetite of the consumer.

Again, Ranger, you really misunderstand the basis for child porn prosecutions, conspiracy prosecutions, etc. I'd advise that you read about this and think about it, and maybe talk to people who actually know something about the law and its basis, before you sound off.

Then again, this is the Internet. Any fool can post their opinions, and many fools do.

The link is correlational. Cause and effect if very difficult to prove. However, common sense tells you someone who likes to watch this stuff has more on their mind.