ah ok i read expat's blog about it, Hoagie's lucky he has no career or reputation to speak of because it would be over now.
but to offer him a defense Hoagland is a conspiracy kook and he was taking issue with the government peaking into private affairs, it's hard to know what he means by "See, it's illegal to send it because then you have to put children in the position of—you know, all that." This statement leads me to believe he has no idea what he's saying - because sending child porn by email versus the child porn being downloaded from a website doesn't put children in any different position. The child has already been exploited/abused, a heinous major crime, the method by which the content created from that abuse is distributed doesn't make the crime lesser or greater.
he's a weirdo but it's almost unfathomable that anybody of sound mind would defend child porn whether you're 'just downloading' or distributing it to others via email. I think what he meant to say is that 'child porn aside, why should it be the government's business if an adult downloads porn for his private use'.
I'd like to hear him address this. Because while he does state that child porn is illegal 'because you have to put children in the position of - you, all that(being stripped naked by an adult creep, your photos taken, sexually molested/sodomized etc) he does seem to think possession of the content resulting from that abuse of a child isn't such a big deal. Which is outrageous. Possession of it is a crime alone, distribution of it is another crime with bigger penalties, and production and being physically involved with the child are additional crimes with even bigger penalties.
Well put.
Where is a link to the Original Clip? It seems to have been removed from the original website's free archives, although the shows from the day before and the day after are available.
Remember, even though they are nonetheless minors, a lot of those "children" are teens. Doesn't make it right, but I'm just saying. Maybe Hoagland is confused.
I too don't understand how Hoagland fails to see that the final product is the result of sexual abuse of a minor, whether it's downloaded or distributed. I mean, in order to download it, it had to be distributed to get there in the first place.
Remember, the powers that be who surveil this type of crime see child porn and are not prosecuted for it. I think it's appalling because in this day and age of graphics, there sure could be a way to collage each image so that it is ten little images instead of one big one. Then, if the viewer sees suspicious parts (like a child face), s/he could go after that, instead of being visually assaulted all day every day at work by creepy sexualized images.
Similarly, with today's technology, there is absolutely no excuse for not collaging or somewhat pixelating body scans at airports. Whether the viewers are in the same room or not, they should respect their own dignity and passengers privacy by letting a computer change the image of each body into a cluster of images. Viewing such a cluster, the specialist would still be able to focus on suspicious objects - and possibly apprehend someone without even needing to unscramble the image of the body. Or, then unscramble the image of the body and go from there. There is an airport that I heard is doing this, but I can't remember where. Child porn monitors should benefit from the same concept. Or does our society want to twist people and feed desires for illegal sex?
