Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

German Member of Parliament Joins Pirate Party

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the first-pirate-in-office dept.

Censorship 246

Political Observer writes "Jörg Tauss, a member of the German Parliament (Bundestag), left the Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is part of the coalition government, and announced that he is joining the German Pirate Party (Google translation; original German article). Tauss resigned from the SPD after all but four of the party's members voted for a new censorship law, which passed the parliament on Thursday. The law, which aims at reducing child pornography, introduces an infrastructure for DNS-based content blocking and is the subject of major criticism from Internet users. In March 2009 Tauss became the subject of investigations by the German police for possession of child pornographic material. He said he had this material only for research as part of his role as a member of parliament. Investigations are still continuing."

cancel ×

246 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow, the world IS changing! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406217)

First a black president, and now a pirate party! Amazing!

Ninja party for the win (3, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406237)

I agree with the Pirate Party but I'm still holding out for a Ninja party since Ninjas > Pirates.

Re:Ninja party for the win (1)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406261)

Silly human, the Terminator Party will conqueror your inferior politics.

Re:Ninja party for the win (5, Funny)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406445)

Will they conquer inferior spelling and grammar as well?

Re:Ninja party for the win (4, Funny)

bsharitt (580506) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406475)

The terminator conquest will be so great, a verb would not suffice in describing it, only a noun could contain it.

Re:Ninja party for the win (3, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406527)

All terminators are based on Austrians who've taken English classes so their English isn't the best. Aside from "Are you Sarah Connor?" and "I'll be back.", they're pretty shit at English.

Re:Ninja party for the win (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407169)

Don't forget "Who is your daddy, and what does he do."

Re:Ninja party for the win (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407211)

Obviously, I'm taking a big risk in correcting a terminator, but:

...they're pretty shitty at English.
                  ^^^^^^

Re:Ninja party for the win (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406725)

Probably not, but they WILL kick the grammar nazis asses!!! All hail our Pirate overlords!! Everyone kick the grammar nazis!

Re:Ninja party for the win (4, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406969)

Yeah. Everyone knows it's spelled Konqueror.

oh great, here comes (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407729)

the grammar nazi party

we're all doomed to a life of assumed inferiority because we don't apply strunk and white's element of style to throw away comments on a backwater chat forum

Re:Ninja party for the win (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407097)

All other forms are insignificant. Resistance is futile.

Re:Ninja party for the win (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407119)

Not this shitty flamewar again :(

Re:Ninja party for the win (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407255)

Ninjas certainly are better, but I don't much care for their health care plan. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ninja party for the win (3, Informative)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408455)

that's a samurai thing

Re:Ninja party for the win (5, Funny)

CrystalFalcon (233559) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407869)

The ninja parties are there. They just aren't visible in the polls.

kiddie porn "research" (-1, Troll)

MeatBag PussRocket (1475317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406255)

In March 2009 Tauss became the subject of investigations by the German police for possession of child pornographic material. He said he had this material only for research as part of his role as a member of parliament. Investigations are still continuing."

what? for research? if by research he means being a sadistic pedophile then i can understand that. of course i'm sure he had to force himself to look at these 'researh images' for several hours a day so he can better understand the mind of a pedophile. so if i'm a scientist, and i'm doing pharmaceutical research, can i use that as my excuse for a small mountain of cocaine on my coffee table?

Re:kiddie porn "research" (5, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406347)

Well, although it does seem far fetched it legitimately could be used for research in the fact that he could either use it to convince people that certain parts of the law as unreasonable (such as, this counts as child porn, however as you can plainly see it is not).

Re:kiddie porn "research" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28408343)

Are you saying that you have seen these images? You must be locked up! Seriously though. How can you say that it is clear it was illegitimate. He had two images. It could have been a dumb idea to save anything-but hardly nothing worse than what a huge percentage of the population does out of curiosity after reading articles on the matter. I would bet the Google gets allot of "child porn" searches when these articles come out.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28408507)

You also have to remember that each country has a different definition of child porn. For example, "erotic child modeling" is legal in the united states, but it would be viewed as child porn in many other countries.

Some countries even see drawn pictures as child pornography, if they feature graphics that someone could interpret as maybe being children.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (5, Insightful)

Draek (916851) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406381)

You've never downloaded 'questionable' material just to see what was the problem with it? BDSM, bukkake, bestiality, snuff films, coprophagia and yes, even child porn have passed through my hard-drives, even though I find all of them disgusting.

I'd post anonymously but frankly, I don't give a fsck, it's been years since I've had any of that stuff and if some cop decided to tap my internet connection they'd only see download of various patches and traffic from the odd online game. Perhaps he's lying, perhaps he's not, but his statement doesn't sound too far-fetched so I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (2, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406443)

I'd just like to add people are curious, plus if anyone wants to get a taste of what people wish they could do if they could get away with it read some books by nancy friday.

Human beings are animals, and they are curious. Put the two together and it's not surprising.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (5, Insightful)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406517)

Quite frankly, unless he's actually paying for it, or otherwise actually contributing to child abuse, I really don't care. Simple possession, if not a completely victimless crime, is certainly very close to being one.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406919)

Right. I don't look at the stuff either, but most people assume that people who do view it are ruthless predators - who are one step away from snatching a kid from the park - without taking into account that it's possible that some people child porn imagining themselves to be the kid and not the adult.

MILF and schoolteacher fantasies anyone? Schoolgirl fantasies? Maybe schoolgirl costumes should be banned because every guy who buys one for his wife or halloween date is a sadistic pedophile.

While we're at it, let's assume that every chick who wears a schoolgirl outfit, or every horny boy who imagines banging his hawt teacher are not indulging fantasies known to be normal since antiquity. Let's assume that they are disturbed and confused and should seek counseling along with heavy doses of behavior modification and the stigma associated with victimhood! [/sarcasm]

As an aside, I find it disturbing that many folks are afraid to post the words "child pornography" on slashdot without obfuscating it to CP or ch*ld pr0n even while anonymous.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (2, Insightful)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408435)

Mere possession is a problem in that it propagates the victimization whether or not money changes hands. A childhood friend of mine who was as much my sibling as my own flesh and blood (and a very early Slashdot member) was recently convicted of trafficking in child pornography. He was somewhat peripheral in terms of content but was actively contributory in establishing the distribution.

This rocked me to my core.

There is no case of possession of child pornography that does not merit thorough investigation and very few that do not merit prosecution.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408611)

Bullshit.

Bust the sick fuck who made the content and bust the next layer of people who paid for or profited from the content.

After that, we hit the slippery-slope type arguments like "people who experiment with marijuana will go on to use cocaine" or "people who download child porn for free via p2p will go on to be molesters".

If they pay for the shit? Okay, fair game, but you forget that the vast majority of molestations are committed by family members and other trusted associates and not creepy guys in trenchcoats sitting on the park bench, eyeing little girls with bad intent (with apologies to Jethro Tull).

You are experiencing an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Respectfully, please quit watching Chris Hansen and other manufactured mass media, read a few psych books and come back after you comprehend the post you responded to.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406993)

Quite frankly, unless he's actually paying for it, or otherwise actually contributing to child abuse, I really don't care. Simple possession, if not a completely victimless crime, is certainly very close to being one.

Also, what exactly does "child pornography" mean? Does a 17 year old girl qualify? How about a 14 year old boy? I wish I made porn when I was 14...

Re:kiddie porn "research" (5, Informative)

SanguineV (1197225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407489)

In Australia it means 20 year old cartoon characters... link [bbc.co.uk]

Re:kiddie porn "research" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407633)

In Germany 14-17 year olds count as "youth" rather than "children", under current law, so I suppose the accusation is that this legislator possesses illegal images of people under the age of 14. Otherwise he would actually be facing charges of "youth porn".

Germany made erotically posed nudes of children illegal again in November 2008, so in fact not all of that material depicts molestation. Those images were fully legal in Germany in 2006-2008 because of a high court case that said they were not sexual abuse so they could not be considered illegal under the former law. I didn't hear about a spike in the number of German child molestations during that time, did you? So it means suggestive images do not necessarily cause molestations, as some people claim.

People need to be able to independently research claims that there's a "billion dollar" industry that creates these images, and that it's all really as abusive as they claim. These claims were used to make the laws harsher. If you can't verify the claims, what you get is one-sided propaganda. I agree with the suggestion that it should remain illegal to buy the images but legal to view them.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28408527)

iirc he had 2CDs and a video on his mobile phone and he did pay for the material. however, considering that he is most likely capable of using tor and darknets it is realistic that he was doing this for research purposes, which of course still doesn't make it legal.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (5, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406617)

Whatever his reasons, I'm not sure that it helps to have somebody being investigated for such material as a supporter of change. If he gets convicted then it becomes a case of "see, only pedophiles and perverts would oppose this law!"

Re:kiddie porn "research" (5, Insightful)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406641)

Not to mention the fact that it's nearly impossible to browse certain high-visibility sites (4chan) without some dumb-witted idiot posting a 8 year old child getting molested.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (4, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406945)

Why don't you have a seat over here and tell me what you are doing with 9 year-old ballerinas in your thumbnail cache?

Re:kiddie porn "research" (1)

rfuilrez (1213562) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407149)

I was just gonna look. I didn't really intend to do anything. I thought they were 14...

Re:kiddie porn "research" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407889)

Too old.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (1)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408459)

I wish I had mod points for you Chris Hansen...

Re:kiddie porn "research" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28408557)

Not to mention the fact that it's nearly impossible to browse certain high-visibility sites (4chan) without some dumb-witted idiot posting a 8 year old child getting molested.

As a prestigious member of 4chan [seriously if you go check the site out, you'll see I have the vast majority of posts there] I'd like to point out how wrong you are. 4chan only occasionally gets child porn posted on any of its boards, perhaps only as often as a few times a month on /b/. Usually it's gone within minutes as the mods and janitors are quick to delete it.

Honestly if you just stay away from /b/ you'll probably never see anything worse than shitting dick-nipples.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406651)

Agreed. But that's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this principle. The much larger issue is that thoughts and looks are being treated as criminal acts, when in fact, then can be the exact opposite, or anything on a spectrum in-between. Treating actions as a crime is one thing, but treating looking at something as a crime is entirely different. And yes, I'll post anonymously, because even otherwise rational people can be completely psychotic about the whole kiddie porn issue. If I was more of a conspiracy theorist I'd even say it's as if the powers that be have encouraged people to hate the idea beyond all rationality, so they have some way to distract people from other issues, like their own ACTS of corruption.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406737)

Yeah, I accidentally stumbled upon the R@yG0ld keyword on WinMX many years ago. I found what I thought was a completely legal set of images(if she was under 18, I definitely couldn't tell) so I selected *everything* the user had. Within a few minutes I realized that the keyword didn't mean "barely 18" and damn near vomited when I saw the first image that was clearly not legal; didn't take long for me to wipe it all since I had no way(or determination) to sift through all of them to determine if any of them might be legal. Now I hear that's all that's left on the WinMX network.

Though what's worse is the naming convention on Usenet where the uploaders think it'll be chic of them to name a pic of an obviously legal girl "15 yrs old.jpg" cause I also used to batch download images from there and about shit myself when I saw filenames like that. Now, I just stick to the obviously legal sites AND if they show a "cougar" then I'm usually sure I'm quite safe..heh

Re:kiddie porn "research" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407295)

Obviously all normal people are very much opposed to kidie porn. So governments try to justify all kinds of snooping under the guise that child porn might be on a hard drive.
                In one form or another this same pattern has always existed. Many police agencies have had a " friendly" social worker who would report an anonymous case of child abuse that enabled cops to break down doors trying to solve other crimes. In short any power given to police will be stretched and abused.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (2, Insightful)

horza (87255) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407543)

There is a very simple test: has he categorised it into different folders?

Phillip.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408501)

I don't find BDSM, bukkake, bestiality, snuff films and coprophagia questionable when done by consenting adults. I admit that bestiality, snuff and coprophagia are not my thing, but that's only my opinion and that doesn't make them questionable.
Bestiality is a gray area, we know the human adult is consenting but what about it's animal partner?

Re:kiddie porn "research" (2, Insightful)

QCompson (675963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406383)

what? for research? if by research he means being a sadistic pedophile then i can understand that. of course i'm sure he had to force himself to look at these 'researh images' for several hours a day so he can better understand the mind of a pedophile. so if i'm a scientist, and i'm doing pharmaceutical research, can i use that as my excuse for a small mountain of cocaine on my coffee table?

Yes, how absurd. Obviously if he looked at these images he is a sadistic pedophile and was about to attack children any second. He also apparently texted the word "geil" so we know exactly what he was thinking.

Of course law enforcement can look at these images for several hours a day and no one is harmed, and we also know they never have any improper thoughts while doing so.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (5, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406591)

The whole thing is a joke. It was his job to handle child pornography cases. He left, because he was disgusted with the way it is handled now.

And another group of politicians made his special rights vanish in the blink of an eye, so that he could not react, and they had a window for suing him. It was all staged.
Interestingly, that very group is known from the "Sachsen-Affäre". A large-scale scandal, where it is proven that they took private advantages, bribes (while in office), did illegal spying, human trafficking, child prostitution and drug dealing. And guess what happened to them. Exactly. Nothing.

So the wolf is the shepherd here, and I guess you can pretty much bet, that the point of this law (at least partially) is to protect them.

UPDATE: Good news: The Pirate Party accepted his membership. So now we have a Pirate in parliament!. Yay!

Re:kiddie porn "research" (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406417)

The guy might actually be a pedophile, given the frequency of occurrence within the population, it'd be shocking if some members of parliament weren't pedophiles; but his story isn't necessarily as absurd as you claim.

Say, for instance, you want to know how likely it is that somebody just on the internet, or somebody looking for ordinary porn, will be exposed to kiddie porn. Or, you want to know how prevalent kiddie porn actually is. Either question seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to wonder about, if you are a legislator with a kiddie porn related bill presented for your consideration. Attempting to answer either question could easily leave you with some illegal images in your browser cache.

In related news, the RIAA and MPAA released a joint statement calling the Pirate Party "A degenerate den of pedophiles that threaten our children and, indeed, our very society"...

Re:kiddie porn "research" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406715)

In related news, the RIAA and MPAA released a joint statement calling the Pirate Party "A degenerate den of pedophiles that threaten our children and, indeed, our very society"...

Just look around... anything that threatens the current society is a pretty good thing in my book.

Re:kiddie porn "research" (4, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406757)

so if i'm a scientist, and i'm doing pharmaceutical research, can i use that as my excuse for a small mountain of cocaine on my coffee table?

What it means is, if cocaine is "bad" but the law outlaws all white powders, then yes having a non-cocaine white powder which is illegal as it violates the cocaine law, would be perfectly fine. (Yes, for you too!)
Throwing everyone in jail who has white powder, under cocaine laws, is BAD (and exactly what happens)

Using the USA as an example, as I don't know the legal age over there, here it is 18 years old. Adjust the numbers accordingly for your country...

If I have pictures of a 17 year 11 month 28 day old girl, and/or next to it a 23 year old girl who looks 17, both of which are illegal under the law and will get me sent to prison as a child porn distributer, that should be fine. (Just like in your example)

I'm not saying anything about what he does or does not have. I don't know. I wasn't there.
But when the government claims he had child porn, I have proof that in 99.(high number) percent of the time it is NOT child porn and just a smear campaign, I will firmly side with the idea that "The government just told a horrible life ruining lie" instead of think they have anything to do with child porn. I have decades and tens of thousands of court cases to back up my default assumption, out of 4-5 that turned out to be real child porn possessors of prepubescent children.

(This also might be a USA thing too) Just as when a police officer claims they tasered that 7 year old boy because it was their "last option", i instantly do not believe them. Under such rare cases would that be the case, that I now dismiss all of them as bullshit, even on that one in a hundred years time it WAS the last option.
Here, tasering for no cause happens so many times a day, that there is no possible way for a sane rational human being to believe it.

As much as I hate people that abuse children, at that ratio, everyone ever arrested for it needs released.
That will not do, as real pedophiles need to be in jail. Thus, to keep tens of thousands of innocent people out of jail, AND to keep real pedophiles in jail, the only solution is to fix the broken laws. THAT is what needs done.

The odds are in favor of this man doing nothing wrong, and the government using their ole staple lie to ruin the life of someone they don't like. The odds they actually managed to catch a real pedophile are too low.

Unlike you, I will wait for proof to be found.

Well done (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406275)

If this kind of thing happens more often, the general public might actually get to hear about it.

Whenever I ask them, most of the people I know have heard about the Pirate Bay guys being found guilty and
very little else. Most news stories we get here (in the UK) are very biased whenever these kinds of stories even appear.
ID Cards are barely mentioned, censorship & privacy stories are generally ignored unless its got the usual terrorists/paedophile
angle.

Huzzah! (1)

scaryjohn (120394) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406291)

Let me be the first to offer a hearty "Yarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!"

Well done Germany (1, Insightful)

Gravedigger3 (888675) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406295)

Seems Europe is starting to get better at that whole "democracy" concept than we are.

Re:Well done Germany (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406495)

It was invented here. We invented it 2 millenia before *your* country existed. I'm not claiming europe is more democratic that 'you', but suggesting democracy is something europe is 'starting to get good at' as if it's something we learned from you kinda shows your ignorance. A lot.

I'm assuming you're american since only an american could have such a completely wrong image of their own country as some kind of beacon of democracy to the rest of the world.

Hello flaimbait moderations.

Re:Well done Germany (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406679)

I took Spanish class in high school, then I went 20 years without speaking it. I got interested and started trying to relearn the language, I'm getting better at it.

Re:Well done Germany (0)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407021)

'We'? You weren't around then, how exactly do you have a place to stand to shout someone else down? Are you taking credit for having been born on the same contiguous landmass as people who invented the word democracy (and many democratic principles)?

Re:Well done Germany (-1, Troll)

Gravedigger3 (888675) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407129)

Please don't patronize me, I know the history of democracy.

Just because you invented it doesn't mean you perfected it.

And don't presume to know anything about me based off of my one sentence attempt at humor above. I just got back to the states after 3 years living in Germany (US Army), I have a very realistic picture of both your countries and mine, so please stop stereotyping Americans as I'm sure you hate it when American's do it about you.

Re:Well done Germany (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407439)

Maybe when your country actually begins to behave democratically you may have a leg to stand on. As it stands now you just pass laws that won't be obeyed by people you wish to marginalise and then strike them off the voting register. In a democracy EVERYBODY gets to vote, not just those that are playing by the current laws. But I guess three years of brainwashing as a government thug has left you incapable of rational evaluation of the scumbags you volunteered to murder for so I'm probably wasting my time here.

Re:Well done Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407711)

Only real a democracy would let criminals and pets be allowed to vote. Oh and dead people, they should be allowed to vote also.

Re:Well done Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407657)

It was invented here. We invented it 2 millenia before *your* country existed. I'm not claiming europe is more democratic...

I'm sorry but you misspelled "Willenium".

Re:Well done Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407985)

Lucky for Americans, we are a republic!

Re:Well done Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28408011)

I'm as big a fan of Germany and European democracy as the next man. But Roman democracy was hardly the same thing as modern democracy.

I'm a proud Briton, but there's no doubt in my mind that the US constitution is better than anything we ever came up with.

Re:Well done Germany (2, Informative)

coffeechica (948145) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408417)

I'm as big a fan of Germany and European democracy as the next man. But Roman democracy was hardly the same thing as modern democracy.

*cough* Greek democracy came first...

And the Romans weren't that different, really. You were a citizen, you got a vote. And their tribus system for voting (you vote in your district, then the district gives one collective vote) is no different from the current US system. The only real difference I can see is that voting rights weren't universal, but when you think that Switzerland didn't allow women to vote until well into the 1970s, that's not that "unmodern" either. Personal wealth as a factor of how much your vote counts for was still around in the 1900s too.

The constitution worked as well for them. They had the mos maiorum, and enough of a legal system that laws were well published, could be changed and abolished. In the late republic, legal representation was available too, and while bribes were involved, it also worked along the principles of proof. There's a reason why Roman Law is the basis of European legal systems. They had the senate to function as a parliament, the consuls, praetors etc. as the elected government, and the tribunes of the plebs as the checks and balance system who could even call all citizens in to vote for major issues.

The Romans actually had a very modern approach to elections, too. You could buy votes, bribe other candidates, lobby your way into getting the support of parts of the elite, spread rumours, marry a woman of an influential family... and if it all didn't help, you claimed a god told you it was okay. You tell me where that's different from what happens in modern democracies.

Re:Well done Germany (3, Interesting)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407047)

How do you arrive at this conclusion? By there being one guy changing parties?

You're lauding the Germans for their Democracy in response to an article about how most of the government there just voted to put in place internet censorship and a framework for DNS redirection to enforce it?

Sounds like they are experiencing many of the same problems with the principles of Democracy that many other countries are having.

No one here's buying it. (5, Insightful)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406319)

"I have been concerned with the scene for years."

You don't need to DL a bunch of kiddie pr0n to study it nor do you do it without informing any police organisation before doing so, if only to prevent any mistaken ideas, much less prevent duplication of work and chasing down useless paths.

Tauss has very good representation who know how to take advantage of a few laws here in Germany which more or less allow public figures to buy their way out of a courtroom.

Re:No one here's buying it. (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406451)

The problem with CP is that its impossible to actually "see" whats wrong with it without running afoul of laws. When information itself is banned, its then becomes impossible to get the information needed to rule on such things. For example, its like someone making laws that affect, say the liquor industry, however this person has never drank any alcohol, doesn't know anyone who drinks alcohol, and hasn't read any studies about alcohol. However when it comes to making informed decisions about CP its impossible to do so without breaking any of the laws because viewing it is so prohibited. So not only can you not drink the alcohol, but you can't really read about it, there are no formal studies done on it, so all you hear are reactionary stories of "so and so was drinking and they hit a tree and died!" rather than any hard information.

Re:No one here's buying it. (2, Insightful)

superdana (1211758) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407015)

You absolutely do not have to see child porn to know what's wrong with it. You can study the effects of victimization on children without personally witnessing the act, just like we do with any other crime.

Re:No one here's buying it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407079)

I'm gonna post a picture of my 8 year old daughter taking a bath.

What's wrong with it?

Re:No one here's buying it. (2, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408543)

Illegal in germany.

Re:No one here's buying it. (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407179)

You can study the effects of victimization on children without personally witnessing the act, just like we do with any other crime.

Right. And this has to do with child porn possession how? Especially when child porn can be legally defined as not even real children (!) just things drawn to seem underage. By that arguement every time someone views "adult" porn they are raping a porn actress (or actor). We know that not to be true. CP possession is effectively a victimless crime. Please tell me who gets harmed whenever someone downloads something legally defined as CP over the internet for no fee. Really, does someone get raped again for every time someone views it? If I watch an execution does that mean the person gets killed every time you watch it? By all means, prosecute and criminalize the production and possibly even the buying of it for profit, but simple possession of images that may or may not even be a real child being harmed in any way, should not be a crime especially when not explicitly asked for (for example someone being charged when they downloaded a huge zip file of porn with 1 or 2 underage people).

And please, tell me how you get across the problem of hearsay when you can't actually look at the pictures? Do you agree with the total prohabition of alcohol just because someone told you that alcohol may have had some influence in someone wrecking a car? But no way that you would ever drink alcohol nor read a study on it. And really, the logic of "they are reading CP that means that automatically makes them a predator" makes as much sense as someone who reads erotic fiction as going to carry out those acts.

Re:No one here's buying it. (3, Insightful)

CompassIIDX (1522813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408087)

No, the child isn't being directly harmed by someone viewing their exploitation, however their honor and dignity are chipped away at with each viewing. Just because the video was already made -- the brunt of the damage has been done -- doesn't give us all the right to see it guilt-free. And completely decriminalizing possession would send an implicit message that the depictions themselves are acceptable.

That said, I certainly agree punishments shouldn't be anywhere near what they are today for mere possession, especially since regardless of conviction the person's life is oft-times destroyed upon mere accusation. (And as for your comparison up there, I actually think possessing videos depicting real murder should carry a similar punishment.)

Of course, as others have mentioned rational thought frequently doesn't enter the picture at all when this subject is on the table, so I see things getting worse, not better. The public hysteria has really reached a fever pitch with stuff like drawings being deemed child porn, or kids taking cell phone pics of THEMSELVES getting charged. It's classic witch hunt mentality, where you literally can't say ANYTHING against someone once they've played the pedophile card without eyes narrowing and the accusations swinging your way. "Oh, you're sticking up for the CHILD MOLESTERS, are you?! Methinks you may be one of them!" ::torches raise:: "GET HIM!"

And society's hypocrisy makes the whole thing even more ludicrous -- in the US anyway -- where the age of consent is 18 (if you're EVER attracted to anything below you're automatically pure evil -- no ifs, ands, or buts), and yet models regularly start their careers at 13/14, and marketing and media bombards us with idealized images of youth around the clock.

Re:No one here's buying it. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28408589)

No, the child isn't being directly harmed by someone viewing their exploitation, however their honor and dignity are chipped away at with each viewing.

That's a comment on society, not childhood sexuality. It's worth asking what does more damage to a kid--being forced to have sex, or the soul-crushing shame their society inadvertently (?) heaps on them for it. You know, because now the kid is a "victim" of the most horrible possible crime that could have been committed towards them. The kid now has all these roles they're expected to fulfill, like "can never trust anyone" and "can never have a normal sex life" and so on. How much of the damage is real, and how much is because society tells them they should have it?

Just because the video was already made -- the brunt of the damage has been done -- doesn't give us all the right to see it guilt-free.

If it was truly damaging to the kid, then yeah, feel guilty; but that's a special case of a more general rule--if you're enjoying someone else's pain, you shouldn't be. It doesn't matter if they're child or adult.

But what if the kid enjoyed it? What if the kid is okay with the material being out there? I find it hard to believe I was the only prepubescent human in the history of mankind to enjoy sexual stimulation!

And completely decriminalizing possession would send an implicit message that the depictions themselves are acceptable.

Possession of videos of just about every other crime on the books is legal, yet that hasn't sent the message that those crimes are acceptable.

That said, I certainly agree punishments shouldn't be anywhere near what they are today for mere possession, especially since regardless of conviction the person's life is oft-times destroyed upon mere accusation. (And as for your comparison up there, I actually think possessing videos depicting real murder should carry a similar punishment.)

Why should it be punished at all? I'd much rather pedophiles have a catharsis than for their urges and curiosities to build up over years until they can no longer contain them and go out to sexually abuse some kid. Not to get all Jack Thompson, but we have this entire culture now built around not just watching, but participating in simulated murder (video games). Unlike good ol' Jack, though, I don't think those games drive people to murder, but do the opposite: They let people blow off steam--satisfy their urges in non-destructive ways--and then everything is alright.

It doesn't even require that any new KP be made--just use what exists. They could say something like, "Any of this stuff from 30 years ago is okay--whack away. But if you make anything new or take it beyond fantasy, we're gonna burn ya."

I know, I know--it'll never fly. We're living in a world scared to death of pot smokers; suggesting that pedophiles should be given an inch will never fly for as long as any of us will live.

Re:No one here's buying it. (5, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408191)

I've found a lot of child porn at www.disney.com. Tons of it. Don't bother going to look. You don't have to see it to know what's wrong with it. We know all about victimization of children. That should be enough. That, and the fact that I've told you that it's child porn. That should be enough for anyone. Or, at least, you.

The rest of us would be less inclined to take random stranger's opinions at face value, thank you.

Re:No one here's buying it. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407581)

I'm sure the FBI would like to know that you can't understand killers without being a killer. Sounds like there could be lots of mass murderers on their payroll. As for kiddie porn, it's porn. With kids. If you can't imagine what it looks like, it's because you don't want to try. And is that really meaningful in understanding anything about it? Do you get a better understanding of gays by watching gay porn? How's something you find on the net not going to be anecdotal? It's not like you're going to get any meaningful statistics out of the effects of kiddie porn no matter how much you watch of it. Are you going to try to infer something from it? Like if the photographer got them to smile for the camera like a good porn star, they're happy? Even if you freed kiddie porn, do you think you'd get any honest answers? Everyone would of course tell you that this is a pure fantasy thing. Probably true for most people too. But "research" my ass... if you've seen it, it's beacuse you've had some secret wish to see the most forbidden of the forbidden.

Why chase pedofiles and not child molesters? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406501)

Well, I wouldn't say that. Have you ever googled, etc. for child porn just to see how easily you can actually find it in the Internet? I am turned on by older women than I am but I have still done that. It wouldn't even be very far fetched claim to say that you could save some of the stuff as example even if you aren't turned on by it. Unless we know exact details of the material on his computer, how it got there and most importantly, if anyone profited from that and if anyone got hurt... We know nothing.

Besides, I always wonder... Why do people act as if pedophiles were horrible people. It is sexual preference that they might not be able to change themselves. What matters is if they let anyone get hurt because of that. Child molesters should be hunted down, as should people who acquire child porn in a way that it causes more injuries to children (IE: Buys it and people who produce it will gain more motivation to produce more). But people who just download it from peer to peer networks without anyone profitting or getting hurt more because of that download? Hell, it might even prevent some child abusement cases.

And yeah.. If you really think that public figure could tell police "I'll download some child porn but I'll just tell you beforehand" without massive scandals...

Re:Why chase pedofiles and not child molesters? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406925)

But people who just download it from peer to peer networks without anyone profitting or getting hurt more because of that download? Hell, it might even prevent some child abusement cases.

That's definitely true, if you use the RIAA's logic. Hell, he can claim that he "stole" money from child pornographers.

CP should be freely available to save the children (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407221)

Child molesters should be hunted down, as should people who acquire child porn in a way that it causes more injuries to children (IE: Buys it and people who produce it will gain more motivation to produce more). But people who just download it from peer to peer networks without anyone profitting or getting hurt more because of that download? Hell, it might even prevent some child abusement cases.

Exactly! If you believe RIAA's theory, then by downloading CP for free you are discouraging the production of CP!

Think of the number of children that can be saved if everyone spreads CP everywhere so no one will pay for it! Wouldn't that cause billions of damages to CP producers? To save children from abuse, the law should mandate the spread of CP instead of making it illegal!

By making CP illegal and thus creating a monopoly for illegal CP producers, the law could be hurting more children than it presumably saves.

Re:No one here's buying it. (3, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406607)

Oh well... Sometimes I am inclined to think we should not direct all that blind hate against people in posession of kiddie porn. Why? Not because I like such people or the stuff they enjoy, but because this witch hunt against anything having to do with kiddie porn scares me rather a lot. It's like the global warming bandwagon... the problem might be real, but the reason everybody jumps on is to push their own agenda. Over here, the police recently investigated some (extremish) right-wing politician, and announced for some reason that they found kiddie porn on his computer. It was odd that they announced it since it was not the object of their investigation, and as it turned out it was something like 2 images in a sizable pr0n-pile of otherwise vanilla erotica. But... if they wanted to eliminate this guy's political career, the move suddenly makes sense, since everyone branded as a child pornographer, however tenuously, is basically branded an outcast for life in today's society.

And what has been predicted is now becoming reality, in Germany at least: child pornography is being used as the excuse to institute state censorship on the Internet. It's already been mentioned as a reason why citizens shouldn't be allowed cryptography or anynomity on the Net. They might take away those liberties to prevent kiddie porn with everyone cheering them on, since in the fight for that cause, anything goes at the moment. But it will not stop there.

Re:No one here's buying it. (5, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407197)

Another argument on the child porn thing is to ask the question, what percentage of all child abuse has to do with child porn? Last time I checked into it, the most generous number I could come up with was a tenth of a percent. A hundred million children in the world live on the streets. Child prostitution is common in developing countries. Child labor exploitation is common. Trafficking in enslaved children is common.

If what is being done to cure child porn is one tenth of one percent of all the money and effort and compromise being put into solving the other 99.9% of suffering experienced by children, then we could say that what is being done is rational. So check it out. Is that the case? No, not even remotely. Much *more* money is being spent combating child porn than any of the other ills that befall children in the world.

So then it's clear that the new and draconian crackdown on child porn actually has nothing to do with protecting children.

Re:No one here's buying it. (1)

Ioldanach (88584) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407571)

it was something like 2 images in a sizable pr0n-pile of otherwise vanilla erotica

And remember, next time you hear a case about someone being charged with having 1000 CP images on their computer, that probably means that they found a single 40 second video clip of CP. Apparently they consider every video frame to be its own "image" and the charges and penalties are based on the number of images.

Re:No one here's buying it. (1)

Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406627)

Yup sounds kinda suss to me. You don't go and 'download' kiddie porn for 'research'. I just don't see what there is to research - not a politician at least. And if you are a politician *surely* you know the consequences of doing it without informing and getting permission of the authorities.

The only thing I can imagine that he might've had a good reason is say, he was curious to find out how hard child porn is to find, and just through some search into Google to try to find some and the media made it out like he actually 'downloaded' it.

Either way, I don't think this is a great thing for the Pirate Party. First I read the headline and thought it'd help legitimize them more in the eyes of the world, however now they'll be thought of as giving refuge to child pornography advocates...or something...

Could do more damage than good.

~Jarik

Re:No one here's buying it. (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406705)

...And if your job is to revise these laws of course no one would ever go see what is out there to see if its really that bad. No not anyone. Just like we want the people who make our drug laws to have never taken any drugs, never looked at any drugs, never talked to people who have taken drugs, heck while we're at it we don't want them to even look at research about drugs either. Or how about we have people making computer laws who have never even used a computer for more than 2 minutes! That works out really well for everyone, right? The thing is, if you are going to make laws about something, you have to at least know what it is you are dealing with, the problem is we have essentially banned all information about CP other than "its bad", if you are in charge of figuring out just how bad it is, I'd say that you would have to look at it to at the very least know what you were dealing with.

Re:No one here's buying it. (1)

Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406731)

I'm not suggesting that he never 'go see' what's going on.

What I am suggesting is he uses the appropriate channels to do it. *Surely* there is a way of legally covering your back while researching this kinda stuff. Apply for a grant to do the research and do it.

And I'm suggesting a politician would arguably *know* what the channels are and know how to cover their backside so they don't get so easily into legal problems like he has.

~Jarik

Re:No one here's buying it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28408313)

I fail to see how applying for a grant or even attempting to get an exception really changes things. The fact it was so easy to get, the quantity, and his role as a politician deserves some consideration here. Politicians and others shouldn't need to get such exceptions like this. It just makes no sense. It would be insane to expect every politician to go get an exception every time they wanted to investigate something scandalous like this. I don't know about how his countries laws are written-but in the US he would have broken no laws-as the law states you must posses three images for a crime to have been committed.

Re:No one here's buying it. (5, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406853)

...And if your job is to revise these laws of course no one would ever go see what is out there to see if its really that bad. No not anyone.

You don't seem to get it. The truth doesn't matter when it comes to the child porn hunts. It is most definitely a case of "guilty until proven innocent" -- and even once you produce that evidence of innocence, you're still screwed for life.

Re:No one here's buying it. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406883)

Well said. I don't want a rock spider associated with my support for anti-censorship proponents either.

Ahhh yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406323)

Ahhh yes. The Pete Townshend defence.

His votes are now going to be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406423)

Aaaarrrrr!

Re:His votes are now going to be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406529)

more like:

<Voice of Mr. Herbert>Aaaarrrrr!</Voice of Mr. Herbert>

Roll up the welcome mat (0, Troll)

Bill_Royle (639563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406493)

Yeah... I'm thinking that the Pirate Party can do without pedophiles.

Re:Roll up the welcome mat (1, Offtopic)

miggyb (1537903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406751)

Pedophiles are people too!

</most controversial comment of the day>

UPDATE! (5, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406599)

His membership got accepted by the Pirate Party!

We now have an active Pirate in the parliament.

I wonder how the next Bundestag elections will end. I have the feeling, that this is the start of something big!

Re:UPDATE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28407403)

Woah, wait... seats are assigned to people instead of parties?

Re:UPDATE! (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407781)

I think it's horrible news and don't understand why they'd want to accept. One of the biggest issues the pirate party has had to fight is "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear". In Sweden they've spent lots and lots of time that we want privacy by closing the curtains, locking the toilet, writing letters not postcards to convince people this is perfectly normal and mass surveillance is unacceptable. For that it's crucial to come across as being a normal person who values their privacy, not a criminal looking to get away with it. How's this guy going to do that with any sort of credibility while he's being charged with kiddie porn? I'm sorry, but I think this will only hurt the pirate party's reputation around the world, even though they formally have no relation to swedish pirate party.

This is NOT good news (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28406635)

These are the worst news regarding any piracy party i've ever heard.

A politician who is charged with possesion of child pornography gets outraged with a law trying to combat child pornography, and then goes on to join a party trying to fight against these censorship laws on completely different grounds.

From this day on, the german Piracy Party will be regarded as a Pervert Party.

Re:This is NOT good news (3, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407825)

It is not the piracy party for heavens sake... It is the "Pirate party" and one of their various objectives happens to be the protection of the civil liberties. I don't think at all that a guy that fights against the implementation of state censorship of the internet with the intention to stop what's basically a thoughtcrimes all under the anthem of 'saving the children', even though all the money, resources and freedom spent on battling child porn is not justified when you find out that actual child prostitution is a much , much worse problem that for some reason gets almost no attention or resources, perhaps because battling it would actually mean messing with mafias and organized crime without giving the governments a chance to remove internet censorship...

Though to be fair, perhaps states just want to avoid to get themselves into situations like Iran's government's in which forbidding internation coverage does not help you in your efforts to prevent the world from knowing what's going on all thanks to that evil, open, decentralized beast the internet is.

Weird move (2, Insightful)

gencha (1020671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28406901)

It's not like the Pirate Party is the only german party that is against these laws. In fact, only the 2 largest parties voted for it.
I would assume he hopes to get rid of these new laws and that he would stand better chances at it by joining a larger party.
So why would he join exactly the Pirate Party?

Maybe the cops just called him and told him that they did not only find CP on his computer but also an illegally downloaded Britney Spears album!

change ! (1)

OricAtmos48K (979353) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407005)

In European Union the pirate party joins the parliament

And I ThoughtAmerican Politicians Had Brass Balls. (1)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407461)

This new Pirate MP is something else again. This guy is like the cheating husband caught in bed with another woman by his wife who then tells her solemnly: "Honey who you are gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?" Unless he is the most uniquely moral and upstanding politician in the history of politics (possible but unlikely) his Blagovitch-style explanation [dailykos.com] is an act performed in order to make his party switch seem like an act of principle rather than what it really is: making a virtue of a necessity. Bottom Line: This guy just wants to stay out of jail and keep his seat.

The pirate party should be very successful! (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28407849)

Pirate party members of parliament have a distinct advantage of a plethora of rich, undefended parliamentary seats to board, plunder, and retain for the cause.

I expect to see them take 5 seats a day in the EU and german parliament at this point, or they'll be keelhauled by the party captain.

why not go for the liberal party? (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28408625)

Germans are pretty conservative and mainstream and I don't see something called a "pirate party" succeeding.

Germany has a liberal party (FDP) that stands for smaller government and more personal freedoms; they also opposed this law. And they have mainstream appeal. It would seem to me that they would be a better choice to join than the "pirate party".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?