Intent.  It means a lot.   It's the purpose of our actions.  But for some reason, it does not make much of an appearance in Child Pornography laws.

A friend brought a certain Ebaums member to my attention. PAUL_ANSKI.   Paul uploads 2 types of videos.  Pornography with adult performers, and videos of obviously minor girls dancing.  Many members have asked for the videos of the minors to be removed.  Ebaums refuses to take any action, as those videos are not Child Porn by legal definition, and thus completely legal.

They're right.  By legal definition these videos are not Child Porn, as they depict no "sexually explicit"  acts.  They're just girls dancing.  When I was a little girl, me and my friends made up dances to songs that we liked, and would often perform them for our parents.  Nothing wrong with that.

Now here's where we get to intent part of this argument.   Paul often tags these videos with words such as "sexy, preteen, cute, etc".  He does not hide the fact that he finds these videos sexually arousing, nor does he deny the age of the girls in the videos.  He knows they are underage.
There are also many comments made by other users that are also sexually explicit.  For example "That girl on the left is begging for cock".    The use of these videos by Paul is obviously intended to be sexually arousing to the viewers. 

It is my opinion that Paul has taken a once innocent and legal video and turned it into Child Porn by intent.   

Let's use another example to support this idea.  Say you have a stand-still portrait of a black person.   Just an everyday image.  Now, if you were to accompany that photo with a caption such as "Stupid Nigger" any normal person will see that as a demonstration of racism.   A once innocent image turn hate crime by the intent of the distributor.  If this were a criminal case, character witnesses may also testify to demonstrate and prove the suspect's intent, by confirming or denying his views and previous actions towards race.

Anyone, pedophile or not, can clearly see the intent behind Paul's uploads.  Both his actions (posting these videos along side obvious pornography, and his membership of the "Jail bait" group), and his words (tags, comments, etc) demonstrate his intent without doubt.   It goes far beyond the need to imagine or assume his intent, it's obvious fact. 

Although these videos are not technically Child Porn, they are being used as such. 

Now, I'd like to use a different law as another reason why these videos should be removed.   Use of a deadly weapon.  By legal definition a deadly weapon is anything used to kill.  This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death.   So, if you use a baseball bat, which is designed with the intent for the use in Baseball, to kill your neighbor, you will be charged with murder and at the very least the use of a deadly weapon.   The law recognizes how innocent objects can be used for other purposes.  Just like how these innocent videos of girls dancing can be used as child pornography, even though these videos were not created for such purpose.

I welcome anyone to view PAUL_ANSKI's videos, and form an opinion of your own.  If you agree with my view on this issue, please contact a moderator to ask for the removal of this content, and the banning of PAUL_ANSKI and his other accounts. 

Also, because the law is the way it is, I also ask that parents restrict their children from using digital cameras, web cams, and camera phones, and uploading videos of them to sites like youtube, and facebook.  There are many Paul's on the internet.  You never know who is looking at your children, and it's very difficult for law enforcement to identify let alone punish such online predators.
Uploaded 04/18/2011
  • 0 Favorites
  • Flag
  • Stumble
  • Pin It