
Global raids shut boylover.net, arrest 184 men, rescue 230 kids - lotusleaf1987
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/global-raids-shut-boylovernet-arrest-184-men-rescue-230-kids.ars
======
SageRaven
This article highlights the insane legislation in the US by way of contrast to
these other countries.

FTA: "A 25-year-old Sydney man from Eastwood was sentenced to eight years in
2010 on multiple charges including three counts of having sex with a child,
while Victorian Bryan Cooper is serving seven years for procuring boys for
sex," said the paper's report. "Sydney man David Anthony Hudson, 40, from
Russell Lea, was jailed for his role in an international child sex tourism
ring and is spending a minimum five years and seven months in jail for
offenses against a Thai teenager… George Iliakis, a former teacher from
exclusive Brighton Grammar in Melbourne, sent videos and pictures of young
boys to other members of the ring, which at its height had 70,000 members.
Iliakis, who is serving a minimum two-year sentence, handcuffed and gagged
boys before photographing them for his sexual gratification."

I was like, "Only eight years for actually having sex w/ three kids?
_Really_?!?" In the US, people merely convicted of _possession_ of child porn
can get _way_ more than that.

I personally don't buy into the "demand" argument which drives possession-only
legislation. I'm all for throwing the book at folks who abuse real kids, but I
think locking people up for collections of bits on their hard drives is pretty
lame and a waste of resources.

On the one hand, I'm thrilled that real predators were sentenced to jail time.
However, part of me cringes at the notion that boylover.net was shut down, if
only for free speech reasons (which I know is handled differently in other
countries). As hideous at the topics likely discussed on the site may be, I'm
guessing the majority of the site users were rather benign and society was
better off with them having a place to gather online.

~~~
LarrySDonald
It's where regulation gets tricky indeed. Having any government capable of
disrupting information flows lead to all kinds of danger. Having no control
also leads to other, way more glaring (though not necessarily more severe)
dangers. In a hype-driven process it's not hard to see who will end up on top,
but even more so when even in a rationally and carefully weighed situation
it's really hard to say and there's no real hope of doing research on what
will work.

Most places have lower sentences then the US simply out of practicality.
Consider what it would be like to go to jail for eight years right now. Would
you really be less motivated if it was ten? Twenty? 25 with an L? Really,
you're already past the point where anyone considering it is "all in" here -
if caught your life is irreparably fucked up (which seems pretty fair). Going
further is just posturing or revenge for general laughs, it won't do much to
actual crime rates.

~~~
billswift
Not _just_ those - it _does_ keep the criminal off the streets longer.

------
cperciva
A note of caution: Police agencies often exaggerate the number of children
they rescue. Did they detain 230 children? Probably. Are these children all
victims of sexual abuse? Probably not -- there are many people who access
child pornography who do not personally abuse children.

I see nothing wrong with placing the children of accused child-pornography-
possessors into foster care as a temporary preventative measure, but we
shouldn't assume that they have all been abused, nor should we use the word
"rescued" indiscriminately.

