Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Smoking Gun)   TSG gets Pete Townshend's "research paper" on child pornography   (thesmokinggun.com) divider line 472
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

36689 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2003 at 5:05 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



472 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-01-14 10:11:12 PM  
Kerouac writes: I completely get it.

No, you don't.

ther bargain (as you insist on using, although it's a contract term, not a criminal one)

Bargain is not a word specific to contracts. A bargain is merely a voluntary agreement for the exchange of goods or services. If I buy an apple from the supermarket, we have made a bargain for which no contract exists. Or, another example. Let's say I agree to work for you for three years and there is no written contract. Is there an enforceable contract? No. But, the agreement is still a bargain. And, the bargain remains incomplete until such time as both of us have performed as agreed. And, while a contract always has a remedy for its breach, ordinary bargains do not.

You seem to believe there's some kind of legal difference between a sting and a simple arrest.

What? I never said that.

If you'd like to debate legal theories, get your legal systems right </b.

Are you the same guy who thought ignorance of statutory provisions negates mens rea? Don't lecture me on knowledge of the law.
 
2003-01-14 10:16:29 PM  
I don't know if he (PT) is guilty or not, but his little 6 page report makes me feel ill. The reasoning seems a bit off, creepy. But maybe not. Either way, this just completly sickens me.
 
2003-01-14 10:16:40 PM  
A part that it was out of topic?
 
2003-01-14 10:22:25 PM  
Just remember folks, you can clear your cookies all you want but your browsing is being tracked directly from your ISP.
 
2003-01-14 10:24:09 PM  
Lonsestar, you and Disney need to cool it. You're way off track and your flaming, both of you, is tiresome.
 
2003-01-14 10:24:55 PM  
I wonder if i should shuddup before being banned. I just saw that many of my posts were deleted.

Ok Disney, lets just say you win all of the discussion we had. I will go under my bridge, do the same.
 
2003-01-14 10:28:28 PM  
Are you the same guy who thought ignorance of statutory provisions negates mens rea

Actually, no.

here's what I said: "Mens Rea means that you had to know or should have known that you were commiting a crime, and have acted with the intention to commit a crime. That is what I mean by intent."

I then made it clear:
"yes, you need to know that you were breaking the law - barring the obvious, that ignorance is not a defense."


However, you're obviously unable to switch from contract law to criminal law.

Contract law is entirely irrelevant here, but since you insist on using it, let's break it down to it's simplest form, re: your quote:
"the bargain remains incomplete until such time as both of us have performed as agreed."

in a solicitation of prostitution (see solicitation there? that's the crime), in ortder to be convicted, you must both have agreed, and performed an act in furtherance of the solicitation (i.e. offering money, going to a meeting place). simply yelling out the window "I want a hooker" is not solicitation.

In a drug sting, the bargain is an exchange of drugs for cash.


That is as far as you can take your bargain analogy, because its legal implications do not apply - as I stated clearly, the presence of a criminal act negates the bargain.
 
2003-01-14 10:28:49 PM  
Ohhh boy. Thank you for anwsering my question where we went wrong. Next time, ill ignore the flames.
 
2003-01-14 10:29:33 PM  
I don't know what to think, but based on only that article (written last January, a long time before this sting) I'd say that he's probably innocent. At the very least, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. If someone caught him jacking off to the stuff, or buying and selling it, or whatever, I'd change my mind... until then, though, he's innocent until proven guilty.

With everyone on the planet watching him under a microscope, I'm sure the truth will come out.
 
2003-01-14 10:31:04 PM  
LawTalkingGuy (and anyone else who's reading this),

When you look at a child being molested, that child is being violated and injured.

Not always. With all of the multimedia designing programs out there, there's been a big rise in simulated childporn. People create images of kids being molested, but no actual kids are being molested.

However, possession of this is a crime.

I even read a news article (it might have been on Fark) about a guy in Australia who was arrested for writing a story about farking a little kid.

I have no problem with prosecuting people for possessing real child porn, but to prosecute them for possessing photoshops seems kind of asinine.
 
2003-01-14 10:31:26 PM  
no, Tom Cruise is American, and lived briefly in Ottawa.

/aplogizes for off-topic comment.
 
2003-01-14 10:35:53 PM  
Kerouac writes: Mens Rea means that you had to know or should have known that you were commiting a crime...you need to know that you were breaking the law.

And, as I quoted Supreme Court Justice Brennan: the ordinary intent requirement - mens rea - of the criminal law does not require knowledge that an act is illegal, wrong, or blameworthy.

However, you're obviously unable to switch from contract law to criminal law.

I've got a news flash for you: civil and criminal law share terms. And, another news flash: in this case, the criminal law is specifically concerned with a bargain. There is absolutely no way around it.

as I stated clearly, the presence of a criminal act negates the bargain.

I've suffered patiently through your arguments; but, your latest post is pure nonsense. A criminal act DOES NOT NEGATE THE BARGAIN. The bargain may be illegal BUT IT IS STILL A BARGAIN.
 
2003-01-14 10:39:41 PM  
"only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist"

That statment makes him guilty.

I dont need to be any of those two things cause Im not into it like the sick Farks that are!
 
2003-01-14 10:43:02 PM  
Damn_Conservative_Media: To the people who think that the age at which someone is considered an adult is arbitrary:

I graduated when I was 17, (I started school early). When I was 16, there were girls that were 18 in the same grade as I (they started school late).

I dated a girl older than me, when I was considered a "minor" (I was turning 17 in another month or two, and she had just turned 18).

Here is where the wide sweeping generalities go out the window again.

I also note that your profile says you're in Georgia. Where, the age of consent is 16. Also, a few articles below this one has a headline that states "After 170 years, it's now legal for unmarried couples in Georgia to have sex."
 
2003-01-14 10:44:04 PM  
Suffered? bleh.

nice switch on point 1 - I didn't claim they needed direct knowledge.

#2: I've provided numerous instances that refute your claims. show me the criminal code that uses the phrase "bargain", and says solicitation of prostitution or a drug sting doesn't qualify.

Or perhaps you still aren't clear on what a bargain is? You seem to think it's the entire act, not the negotiation.

#3. sorry - misquote. "Bargain" was supposed to say "contract" there.

You see, the bargain is the negotiation of terms - what each side gives and receives.

A bargain is part of a contract.

Should you insist on continuing this notion that the bargain is some seperate entity that can somehow be completed within an invalid contract, well, I'll just roll my eyes and move on.
 
2003-01-14 10:44:47 PM  
MyBrandNewEyes : THANK YOU! I couldn't agree more. Especially the part where he screams "I feel something". ppl are desensitized to a point. re-sensitizing can be fun, there's so much going on that nobody notices...
 
2003-01-14 10:46:36 PM  
01-14-03 09:51:42 PM Spoonman
when i was 14 i used to search for images of nekkid 15-16 year old girls...was that illegal?

Uh, thats a big 10-4, buddy, you better believe it. It might not have created quite the stir this has if youd been caught (being 14), but its illegal regardless of how old you are. Its illegal much the same way prostitution is illegal; not because it hurts the buyer (or viewer, in your case, although this is debateable) but because it hurts the provider (theoretically, in the case of prostitution, and definitely, in the case of kiddie pr0n).
 
2003-01-14 10:47:07 PM  
Pete Townshend writes like a third grader.
Maybe he cribbed off his girlfriend.
 
2003-01-14 10:47:38 PM  
Lonestar: For what? For that definition?

No, it was in reference to Homestar Runner, and the alter-ego Homesar

Hence, Lonesar
 
2003-01-14 10:50:15 PM  
Free Peter.
 
2003-01-14 10:53:19 PM  
01-14-03 10:47:38 PM Lordargent
No, it was in reference to Homestar Runner, and the alter-ego Homesar

Hence, Lonesar

Ok, my american culture knowledge is not very good. Im sure i dont understand the meaning of that joke. Can you please explain?
 
2003-01-14 10:57:34 PM  
what kind of idiot would give their credit card number to a pornography site, whether it be for proof of age purposes or not?
this kind of idiocy leads me to think he's either really really stupid, or guilty.
either way he loses out.

secondly, "only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist" ....

he's saying he was not strong willed enough to resist the curiosity of watching children getting raped? Most people aren't curious of this type of content, but appalled and disgusted, repelled. REPELLED. not drawn in.
 
2003-01-14 11:02:20 PM  
Kerouac writes: nice switch on point 1 - I didn't claim they needed direct knowledge.

You've just proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest. Mens rea is nothing more than the state of mind wherein a person understands and desires the consequences of his act. If he doesn't know he's acting illegally, it makes no difference in 99% of criminal cases.

#2: I've provided numerous instances that refute your claims. show me the criminal code that uses the phrase "bargain", and says solicitation of prostitution or a drug sting doesn't qualify.

This is more of your incompetent rubbish. This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you: THE BARGAIN AND THE CRIME ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME.

#3. sorry - misquote. "Bargain" was supposed to say "contract" there.

I made it quite clear that I was not referring to contracts. Yet, inexplicably, you keep bringing them up -- under the feeble-minded belief that all bargains are contracts or under the even more ridiculous notion that the term "bargain" only has a place in civil law.

A bargain is part of a contract.

This is a very simple concept. Before considering making a response, you should read the following sentence several times:

A contract is a specific type of bargain. Much as a square is a specific type of rectangle. All contracts are, therefore, bargains. But, all bargains are not contracts.

Should you insist on continuing this notion that the bargain is some seperate entity that can somehow be completed within an invalid contract, well, I'll just roll my eyes and move on.

What the hell are you talking about? Bargains can -- and usually do -- exist without the existence of a contract. If I agree to lend you money at an exorbitant rate, and you accept the offer, that is a bargain -- BUT, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT. If I agree to work for you exclusively for three years, that is a bargain -- BUT, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT (unless the terms are put into writing). If I agree to kidnap your wife for $50,000, that is a bargain -- BUT, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT.

Do you understand now?
 
2003-01-14 11:04:34 PM  
Weird...rambling...won't...stop.
 
2003-01-14 11:04:38 PM  
01-14-03 10:57:34 PM Monkeyeatingchicks
what kind of idiot would give their credit card number to a pornography site, whether it be for proof of age purposes or not?
this kind of idiocy leads me to think he's either really really stupid, or guilty.
either way he loses out.


I did the same mistake once. I gave my CC to a porn site for a "1,95 free trial". I was drunk at the time, wanted to see boobies, specificly asian boobies.

Of course they scammed me! They charged me a full month access because in the corner of their website they mentionned the free trial was for 3 days and that they would automaticly charge a month afterwards. I called the CC compagny and ranted until i threatened to have the RCMP look into it. They gave me the porn site money collectors agency and i dealed with the man. Of course when i mentionned the RCMP he gave me my money back with apologies. I changed my CC number afterwards.

Well thats the end of my stupid mistake. Never pay for porn ever again.
 
2003-01-14 11:05:57 PM  
Monkeyeatingchicks

Yeah, I've got a problem with that "only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist" statement as well. Kind of creeps me out. I know this stuff is out there but frankly, I don't want to see it. I'm pretty curious as well, but this is one of the things at which I draw the line. Even when nobody is actually getting hurt, it's still kind of creepy and I tend to get kind of wary around people who like anything of the sort.

I'm not quite sure how I manage to tie this in with being the totally wooly headed liberal that I am most of the time, but there you have it... still, I'm inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but then again, I am a woooly headed liberal and am willing to give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt. Townshend, or anyone else of r that matter, is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
 
2003-01-14 11:06:49 PM  
I heard on the news that he had been sexually abused himself, but in that document, he said: "I have no memory of being abused" [sic].

eh?!? was he sexually abused or not?? anyone know?
 
2003-01-14 11:14:15 PM  
**note to self...**

Write essay damning the download of porn in case wife stumbles upon my "secret" directory...
 
2003-01-14 11:19:44 PM  
Unfortunately, perhaps the ideal situation is to have child porn easily found via your average search engine - then the authorities can track them quickly and shut the sickos down.

I've never seen child porn on the internet and I hope I never do. But there are those who are always curious to see something sick like consumptionjunction type sites. I used to work at a company with internet access and the droves of idiots that were into seeing that stuff didn't do much to increase my faith in the benevolence of humanity. I could easily imagine them viewing child porn for it's shock value.

We're in a dark age of sorts now with a lot of people who need to grow up a bit. Maybe it's because I live in a rural area, but there's a lot ignorant people around here who are out to see what the internet has to offer.

I think society may eventually experience a backlash into prudishness.

Someone keeps mentioning that intent is important in determining if a crime has been committed. Manslaughter is a crime without intent. So perhaps one should be paranoid of accidental viewings. If someone stumbled onto an illegal picture (phooey to those who think that's 100% preventable) is intent determined by how long they viewed it, or by whether or not they saved it to their hard disk? No, the only just way is to go after the source.

I think it's weird that PT would actually pay for child porn knowing that he's supporting the very abuse he suffered. That said, the paper seemed reasonable enough to me.

The comment about the line of cocaine I took to be about the effect free child porn has on a pedophile, not how he himself feels.
 
2003-01-14 11:22:05 PM  
Monkeyeatingchicks:

Not sure, but I've heard an interesting story. Pete I guess was a prolific songwriter, rarely had writer's block. Writing all of Tommy was a snap. But he got severe writer's block on "Uncle Ernie" and passed it off to the Ox, who wrote it in no time.

Pop psychology: maybe the song hit too close to home to write.
 
2003-01-14 11:27:00 PM  
I'm well researched enough on pornography (12 years) and know the industry doesn't touch the kiddie stuff with a million foot pole. You have to seriously search for it.

Besides, grannies are sexier!
 
2003-01-14 11:36:03 PM  
thanks. I guess it's irrelevant whether he was abused or not. he just really shouldn't have clicked into the trail of child porn from his search result.

most of us would see some offensive words next to the word "child" or "boy", and run a mile. or call the cops. if i saw something like that, i wouldn't have telephoned a lawyer. but then that's just me.
I'm a freaking genius.
 
2003-01-14 11:36:22 PM  
So did he compose this after the whole "it's for research" defense? Why do it feel like he did? I've written enough the-night-before papers to know one when i see one...
 
2003-01-14 11:36:44 PM  
and so I wash my hands of this.

I use the word "contract" because you're talking contract law.

Mens Rea has been found to mean either "intent to commit a criminal act" or "intent to commit an act which is criminal". The fact that you quote a SC judge - which I can't find anywhere - means little. look up all the decisions where intent is necessary.

and for the last bit, you've got it backwards.

If you agree to lend me money at an exorbitant rate, that's the contract. Deciding on the amount of the loan and the size of the rate - that's the bargain.

agreeing to kidnap my wife in return for cash is the contract.

agreeing on the $50,000 is the bargain.


legally, a contract is an agreement, not a piece of paper.


Perhaps in dictionary phrasing:
Bargain: an agreement between parties that settles what each gives or receives (as a promise or performance) in a transaction between them

Contract
an agreement between two or more parties that creates in each party a duty to do or not do something and a right to performance of the other's duty or a remedy for the breach of the other's duty


I repeat: I only keep using the term "contract" because a bargain is only a legal element of contract law. You have provided noting to dispute that notion, while I have provided many frames of reference for the terms you're throwing around.

Maybe you'll need more than a semester of pre-law to figure all this out.
 
2003-01-14 11:38:47 PM  
also i have not been taught proper grammar why does it Thank you public education system!
 
2003-01-14 11:41:53 PM  
01-14-03 11:27:00 PM R1niceboy
I'm well researched enough on pornography (12 years) and know the industry doesn't touch the kiddie stuff with a million foot pole. You have to seriously search for it.


Are you sure? I surfed boobies today and i found a really scary link on ampland. Link NSFW. Check out Jan 10 (8)Ebony movies link. Thats a Free movie site. Watch for popups.

Those are children, im sure, sadly. The porn industry really does try to kill the bad links but some, sadly, stay linked. That site usually kills the links that are questionable.
 
2003-01-14 11:52:01 PM  
Polyploidy

the correct phrase is: I have not been taughten good grammer.
 
2003-01-14 11:54:52 PM  
R1niceboy: Yeah, instead the sickos end up finding normal sites that contain a few unfortunate words on the same page.

There's nothing nastier than going through your sever logs and finding what people have entered into a search engine to find your site. Sadly, there's no law against being a sick fvck and looking for those things, but I'm still tempted to pass on the IPs the few times it has happened.
 
2003-01-14 11:58:58 PM  
Lonestar, i think your right about those girls being kids, you should report it so they kill the link.
 
2003-01-15 12:02:31 AM  
01-14-03 11:58:58 PM Klippoklondike
Lonestar, i think your right about those girls being kids, you should report it so they kill the link.


I already did, sadly.
 
2003-01-15 12:04:33 AM  
Kerouac writes: I use the word "contract" because you're talking contract law.

I am not talking contract law. Terms like "consideration" and "bargain" are used when discussing contracts; but, they are not exclusive to contracts. Both "consideration" and "bargains" can (and do) exist wholly outside of contracts.

look up all the decisions where intent is necessary.

Intent is required for ALL crimes (with the exception of some crimes of strict liability). The problem is that you don't understand what intent is. Intent has nothing to do with a person's knowledge that he is committing a crime.

If you agree to lend me money at an exorbitant rate, that's the contract.

NO IT IS NOT. There are laws governing maximum allowable rates of interest. A bargain that stipulates a rate in excess of the legal limit is not enforceable at law. It is, therefore, by definition, NOT A CONTRACT.

legally, a contract is an agreement, not a piece of paper.

Again, you are totally wrong. A contract is a special kind of agreement. It is "a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some recognizes as a duty."

A bargain, by contrast, is merely "a mutual voluntary agreement between two parties."

But, more specifically, there are certain contracts THAT MUST BE IN WRITING TO BE ENFORCED. These include contracts for the transfer of real property, the sale of a bill of goods in excess of $500 and contracts for employment longer than 1-year in length.

I only keep using the term "contract" because a bargain is only a legal element of contract law.

That's just absurd. And, it's flat wrong.

You have provided noting to dispute that notion

I have provided several examples of bargains that have nothing whatever to do with contracts.

Maybe you'll need more than a semester of pre-law to figure all this out.

You have demonstrated such a stunning lack of knowledge of the law and such a gross incompetence in basic concepts that you shouldn't try to put yourself above others. If you had taken one semester of pre-law, you ought to have a better understanding than you've shown.
 
2003-01-15 12:04:58 AM  
Kerouac, u really has got it wrong.
mens rea - the guilty mind is required before sentencing in any indictible offense
so too is the actus reus
that it actaully took place

Bargain? WTF? have i missed something where this CRIMINAL case turned into a civil one? contracts only exist in civil law, (and btw, you cannot have a contract for something that is illegal)

i can't actually work out what u 2 r arguing about, but jeez, like everything else in the world, becoz he is a celebrity, can afford excellent lawyers and solicitors, did at least write a half-assed paper (has any1 thought that there might be an incomplete paper somewhere?) means he will walk away

and beside AP already apologised for them incorrectly reporting that he used his credit card to access porn..
 
2003-01-15 12:08:04 AM  
That ampland link just left me completely uncomfortable...now i'm going to feed my guilt with a ham sandwich and feel sorry for the state of the world.
 
2003-01-15 12:13:18 AM  
Diamondshark writes: Bargain? WTF? have i missed something where this CRIMINAL case turned into a civil one?

I brought up bargains -- not Kerouac. But, not in the sense of contracts or in the enforcement of contracts. I used the term bargain to mean a voluntary agreement between two parties.
 
2003-01-15 12:16:48 AM  
01-15-03 12:08:04 AM Klippoklondike
That ampland link just left me completely uncomfortable...now i'm going to feed my guilt with a ham sandwich and feel sorry for the state of the world.


Just dont kill too many kitten on the regular porn of this site. ;)
 
2003-01-15 12:17:36 AM  
Black's law dictionary:

Bargain: An agreement between parties for the exchange of a promise or performance. Not necessarily a contract because the CONSIDERATION may be insufficient or the transaction may be illegal.

Contract: An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable... etc, (it goes on for a while).

Consideration: Something of value received by a promisor from a promisee.

Point is, if an agreement is ILLEGAL or nothing of value has been transferred to the person making the promise, then it is a bargain.

Simple enough.

Mens Rea: Simply put, the state of mind. It does describe the intent to commit an act one knows to be illegal. (The intent to commit a criminal act)

But, I disagree with Kerouac. The "intent to commit an act that is criminal" is commonly referred to as NEGLIGENCE.

Now both of you shut the hell up.
 
2003-01-15 12:19:11 AM  
Eraser8 said:

But, more specifically, there are certain contracts THAT MUST BE IN WRITING TO BE ENFORCED. These include contracts for the transfer of real property, the sale of a bill of goods in excess of $500 and contracts for employment longer than 1-year in length.

Jebus, Eraser, if you start going on about the Statute of Frauds, I am going to come over there and stuff you in a mailbox.
 
2003-01-15 12:21:33 AM  
Zaago, I would agree with most of your points -- except on mens rea. The offender does not need to have specific knowledge that he is committing a crime. All that is necessary is that he understands and desires the consequences of his actions. As I noted to Kerouac, there are some exceptions to this; but, generally speaking, mistakes of law are not valid defenses.
 
2003-01-15 12:22:36 AM  
Attorney catfight. Everyone is allowed in, every attorney should pitch in. I start taking bets.

/Opens up bag of popcorn.

/This should not be taken as Flame. Flame had nothing to do in the writing of this post.
 
2003-01-15 12:28:50 AM  
But if he knows the consequences of his actions, then he knows he is committing a crime, which satisfies the first definition of mens rea. If he acts deliberately but cannot forsee that the end result will be criminal, is that not negligence or reclessness? He can still be charged with a crime, but typically is it not a lesser offense refecting the negligent act such as reckless homicide?
 
Displayed 50 of 472 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report