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 (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



472 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2003-01-14 01:22:45 PM
Why is it that when people get rich and famous they feel the need to ramble on and on as if someone cares?
 
2003-01-14 01:29:25 PM
Because Candypants - most people just ramble but to be rich and ramble, thats almost like multitasking.
 
2003-01-14 02:02:02 PM
The victim, if the infant boy survived and my experience was anything to go by, would probably one day take his own life.

Huh? Pete Townsend committed suicide before writing his "research paper"?
 
2003-01-14 02:05:24 PM
I'm not buying it. I've logged many, many hours of web surfing and have never had anything as vile as what he describes come up. Porno sites, yeah. But not what he's talking about.
Methinks he protests too much.
I love the Who's music, but give me a break, Pete.
 
2003-01-14 02:18:26 PM
im with Yosarian i'm not buying either
 
2003-01-14 03:21:01 PM
I'm not buying it either.
 
2003-01-14 03:54:28 PM
No sale.
 
2003-01-14 04:07:50 PM
Nope...

And I guess I'm terminally uncurious. Probably going to be a boring death.
 
2003-01-14 05:07:13 PM
I knew they would have it eventually.
 
2003-01-14 05:08:40 PM
I can't believe it.
Please be innocent.
Please?

/hero worship down the drain
 
Mex
2003-01-14 05:09:19 PM
Well, how much does it cost?
 
2003-01-14 05:09:37 PM
So sad about us
So sad about us
Sad that the news is out now
Sad, suppose we can't turn back now
Sad about us

So bad about us
So bad about us
Bad - never meant to break up
Bad - suppose we'll never make up
Bad about us

Apologies mean nothing
When the damage is done
But I can't switch off my loving
Like you can't switch off the sun
 
Mex
2003-01-14 05:10:52 PM
I feel kinda like when I found out Tool's "Stinkfist" song was about anal fisting. I mean, I guess I kinda knew in the back of my head, but, oh, what a disappointment.
 
2003-01-14 05:11:06 PM
"...laid out like a free line of cocaine at a decadent cocktail party: only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist"

Or those of us who like women who actually have breasts and secondary hair.
 
2003-01-14 05:11:17 PM

GIS for "Russia", "orphanages" and "boys"

I feel so dirty.
 
2003-01-14 05:11:55 PM
Blah. Child porn laws are dumb. Outlawing (and prosecuting) producers seems reasonable and smart, but consumers? If demand for this kind of thing hasn't gone away yet, it likely never will. So, what's the point?
 
2003-01-14 05:12:26 PM
we will never really know.
there will always be someone saying he's a pedophile.
and there will always be someone defending him.
only he knows what's going on within himself.
when can talk and feel important all we want.
it doesn't matter.

sigh. cynical today.
 
2003-01-14 05:12:58 PM
I suggest that if Pete thinks that the curious would look at that shiat, curious must be defined as a terminally sick motherfarker.
 
2003-01-14 05:13:13 PM
That's some sick shiat.
 
2003-01-14 05:13:21 PM
Yeah the "strong willed or terminally uncurious" was a little much.

Personally, I'm not either by a long shot, but I haven't done these searches because kiddy porn just ain't on my mind. I think an overwhelming majority of people are like me in this regard.
 
2003-01-14 05:13:34 PM
Oh no! It's only a matter of time until police find Pete's bloody clown suit.
 
2003-01-14 05:13:50 PM
Forget about winona, this sounds like the OJ case of the oughties.
 
2003-01-14 05:14:09 PM
The idea is to cut demand so supply will quit making it... while simultaneously eliminating supply so that demand can't find it. Either way, if it protects the kids, I'm for it.
 
2003-01-14 05:14:24 PM
Not buying it either.
 
2003-01-14 05:14:40 PM
MrGumboPants: better start depleting your collection, else go the way of Mr. Townshend.

I think the point of the smoking gun stuff is to show that Townshend's claims of "research" hold some water...
 
2003-01-14 05:15:06 PM
That paper seems vaguely reasonable to me. It smacks of cover your arse a bit too much, though. It also seems to have a bit of a rambling, hippie-snuggling, self-examination quality to it that, I must confess, creeps me out.
 
2003-01-14 05:15:26 PM
Let the person who doesn't laugh at ArkieBoy's Photoshops cast the first stone.
 
2003-01-14 05:15:39 PM
Tommy, can you hear me?
Can I download your pictures?
 
2003-01-14 05:15:45 PM
Look, it's really simple to prove or not. If he went to the site more than once, if he passed along photos, etc., all of that will be in the dark depths of his hard disk.
 
2003-01-14 05:16:29 PM
Yeah, this isn't the war on drugs. This isn't a victimless crime. If everyone is terrified of being caught, they'll stop looking (or get locked up)and the market will hopefully dry up (a longshot, it's true, but in this case it's important enough to try.)
 
2003-01-14 05:16:41 PM
Mex

That song is only metaphorically about anal fisting. Like all of their songs, there is a deeper/more important meaning.
 
2003-01-14 05:16:51 PM
It's quite an ugly situation he's gotten himself into. I can't see it turning out well for him regardless of the truth.
 
2003-01-14 05:16:57 PM
Research my ass. If I get caught with a hooker can I claim research too?
 
2003-01-14 05:17:23 PM
Drat! They ix-nayed my Yakov cliche!
 
2003-01-14 05:17:27 PM
The essay pretty much explains much of what has been going on this week. It is only one of several things that he's written about the subject. All that the police have ever said about him is that his number showed up on a site that they set up as a sting operation. They didn't find anything on his computer, which Pete willingly handed over. Anyway he wasn't charged with anything and he went home today. This sting operation, BTW, has arrested about 20,000 people since last year, resulting in about 130 convictions.

So, you people serve on juries and stuff? Wow.
 
2003-01-14 05:17:28 PM
"The "pathway to 'free' paedophilic imagery is--as it were--laid out like a free line of cocaine at a decadent cocktail party: only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist."

We know join The Who backstage, circa. 1975....

KEITH: Man, look at all this blow! Only a strong willed or uncurious person could resist all of this!

JOHN: That's me! I'm indestructible to this stuff!

PETE: This coke is so good, it reminds me of a two-year old being raped in a Russian prison.

ROGER: Um, I'm getting up to get a Schlitz now...

And another thing. Is "Stinkfest" really about fisting?
 
2003-01-14 05:18:02 PM
Look I've been on the Net for a very long time now. Sure pr0n is everywhere....but a two year old boy being raped doesn't just "pop-up". Sure there are a bunch of sick farks out there but you have to deliberately GO OUT LOOKING FOR THIS CRAP. Plain and simple.
 
2003-01-14 05:18:03 PM
So does this mean the 5-page essay I did on the history of druge laws will protect me if they find my Igloo cooler full of fluffy-bud?
'Cause I need all that for like, uh, research, man..
 
2003-01-14 05:18:05 PM
Plus: Isn't there anyone on Fark who isn't a little bit worried about all of that pop up crap and history files. I DO enjoy looking at boobies on the internet, and if I hadn't nuked java and activex, who's to say that I wouldn't get bounced to a somewhat questionable site. But then again, I've never typed lolita into a search engine, and I despise Nabakov.

/off to slag my hard-drive just based on paranoia alone
 
2003-01-14 05:18:21 PM
spend enough time on Kaaza and you can accidently download a lot of stuff.. I think people intentionally mislabel stuff..

but through a search engine? little less convincing.. I don't think he's out there cruising for this stuff because he loves it though.. and this paper was written long before his arrest came.
 
2003-01-14 05:18:30 PM
They'll send him to one of those awful celebrity prisons, where they only let you play tennis on Tuesday, the hot tub only seats 6, and they serve really cheap wine with the lobster.
 
2003-01-14 05:19:04 PM
I'm pretty weak willed and I've had no problem avoiding kiddie porn. There's a pretty big difference between not eating a hamburger and participating in the sexual exploitation of children.
 
2003-01-14 05:19:41 PM
LawTalkingGuy,

Amen! But in our trying, there should be some way to stop a McCarthyian episode.
 
2003-01-14 05:19:57 PM
I'm so glad that the folks in here are relying on media reports and heresay and nothing quite so mundane as 'evidence' to try Townshend.

Keep up the good work, Farkers.
 
2003-01-14 05:20:18 PM
He's been "researching" this since 1997? I'm not buying this either. How sad.
 
2003-01-14 05:20:31 PM
LMFAO @ 'oughties'
 
2003-01-14 05:20:53 PM
that deaf, dumb, blind kid sure plays a mean pornball
 
2003-01-14 05:21:09 PM
"The idea is to cut demand so supply will quit making it... while simultaneously eliminating supply so that demand can't find it. Either way, if it protects the kids, I'm for it."

Isn't that idiotic on the face of it? It *doesn't* protect kids, there's no more of a link between pedophilia fantasizers and abusers than there are between rape fatasists and rapists.

I'm telling you, we've gone off the deep end on this pedophilia shiat. Compared to every way that children are abused, pornography is a tiny sliver. Cracking down on abusers is fine, but like I said.. it's 2003. Anyone who still buys the argument that ingesting images leads to replicating those images is a good century behind the times.
 
2003-01-14 05:23:25 PM
Personally, I think he's full of crap. In all my months of cruising child-porn chat rooms, I've never come across him one time and another thing.....................hold on, there are some guys in suits knocking on my door.

Be right back.
 
2003-01-14 05:23:25 PM
Compared to every way that children are abused, pornography is a tiny sliver.
If it helps one kid isn't it worth it?
 
2003-01-14 05:23:33 PM
Withak,

a hamburger and participating in the sexual exploitation of children.

Yes but Seinfeld taught us that if George Costanza was a pedophile, he'd try to do both at once.
 
2003-01-14 05:24:45 PM
Jraunimo, what the F*CK did you expect??

This isnt 1995 where the online presence is somewhat
educated, this is 2003, where every hick moron has a
Dell hooked up to AOl!

I can remember a time where right wing, gun toting, ignorant morons
were but a myth, now they stink up every board on the net.

Proof: Most treads here and every single msg board on Yahoo
 
2003-01-14 05:25:00 PM
It might be strange to hear that I was glad I found it. Until then, like my ostrich-like friends, I imagined that only those who communicated on the internet using secret codes, private chat-rooms, and encrypted files would ever be exposed to this kind of porn.
 
2003-01-14 05:25:01 PM
I wish my college profs bought the "one page per year of research" argument.
 
2003-01-14 05:25:07 PM
Accusation is as effective as conviction when it comes to pedophilia.
 
2003-01-14 05:25:09 PM
Is MrGumboPants creeping anyone else out?
 
2003-01-14 05:25:23 PM
Thank you, WithaK. Someone needed to say that.
 
2003-01-14 05:25:58 PM
01-14-03 05:17:27 PM Toxicsafe
The essay pretty much explains much of what has been going on this week. It is only one of several things that he's written about the subject. All that the police have ever said about him is that his number showed up on a site that they set up as a sting operation. They didn't find anything on his computer, which Pete willingly handed over. Anyway he wasn't charged with anything and he went home today. This sting operation, BTW, has arrested about 20,000 people since last year, resulting in about 130 convictions.


Uh ... Pete, I don't think you should be commenting on your case right now.

Seriously, it's a little misleading not to mention that you're out on bail.
 
2003-01-14 05:26:04 PM
"If it helps one kid isn't it worth it?"

That's the same argument that ruined the names of *tons* of men during the 'date rape' hysteria of the late 80s/early 90s.

And, just like that case, it's not like this doesn't happen. But how many harmless creepy men who will never touch a child should you incarcerate for every abuser you put away?
 
2003-01-14 05:26:30 PM
What search site did Pete use that got him child porn for "Russia" and "orphanages?" www.findchildporn.com?
And all this talk of his about how only the "strong willed" couldn't wander into kiddy porn: He ought to put a sign on his forehead that says "REPRESSED PEDOFILE."
***
"They didn't find anything on his computer, which Pete willingly handed over." - Umm, they haven't said they didn't find anything, have they?
 
2003-01-14 05:27:24 PM
You can have a rape fantasy, and role play a rape with your willing partner. Or look at pictures of simulated rape. No one is injured in the manufacture of that image, or the fulfillment of that fantasy.

When you look at a child being molested, that child is being violated and injured.
 
2003-01-14 05:27:42 PM
Gumbo,

Reread my comment. I didn't suggest that ingesting pr0n is the impetus for a fantasizer to jump to action. (that's an entirely seperate debate).

What I said is the supply comes from the abuse of children. There's no way around that fact. Thus to protect the children being abused to manufacture the stuff, requires hitting it at both ends: supply and demand.
 
Ant
2003-01-14 05:27:58 PM
MyrnaMinkoff
I can't believe it.
Please be innocent.
Please?

/hero worship down the drain


I hope he's innocent too
 
2003-01-14 05:28:16 PM
Nagasaki,
please back up blanket statements.
 
2003-01-14 05:28:22 PM
Pickleweasel-
The solicitor and the investigator on TV this morning said that no images appeared to have been downloaded to the computer.
 
2003-01-14 05:28:28 PM

No, my "Research" on online Pr0n has not taken me to any pedo sites. No. Besides:
1)Google filters,Pete. Learn it, use it, love it.
2)You gave your CC card to the site. Whether or not you downloaded pics, you're a member.
3)You're a Rock Star, not Sherlock Holmes, had you talked to your lawyers, they'd tell you what you were planning was not a good idea.

Sorry, Petey, no one knows what it's like to be the bad man, but I bet you could tell us now, couldn't ya ?

 
2003-01-14 05:28:48 PM
Oh Christ.

Let the man beat off while looking at four year old Russian boy being raped by a floor lamp if he wants.
 
2003-01-14 05:29:32 PM
MrGumboPants-
You are simply wrong. Thinking and doing ARE related activities.

Based on your scary posts, someone needs to scan your hard drive to see if you are danger to society.
 
2003-01-14 05:30:02 PM
"When you try to shut that site, another pops up, then another, then another, the content getting more and more extreme until your browser is solid with pornography and eventually will seize up as though choking on some vapid manifestation of evil itself."

I would love to see how he describes the Blue Screen of Death.
 
2003-01-14 05:30:08 PM
"Is MrGumboPants creeping anyone else out?"

*sigh*.. listen, historically, I have an axe to grind about the way we treat sexual deviants. Because, on the one hand, a percentage of them really *are* hurting people and doing awful things. But the rest of them are frequently creepy, repressed people who were abused themselves and don't deserve jail just for indulging in fantasies.

Hurting real people = Jail
Looking at pictures =/= Jail

I don't think that's such an insane thing to think.
 
2003-01-14 05:30:27 PM
you know when Pete does the windmill thing when he plays guitar? That's cool.

By the way, who would read a child sex abuse book written by Pete Townshend?
 
2003-01-14 05:31:37 PM
I'm willing to argue that by consuming media images of the victimization of children, you are participating in that victimization, whether you are doing it as a fantasy or not.

If you want to fantasize about it, get your girl to put her hair in pig-tails and call you daddy. But looking at a photo of a real child being raped to get your rocks off, makes you a criminal no matter what your argument is.
 
2003-01-14 05:31:50 PM
MGP, no need to sigh. If I thought you were really into kiddie porn I would have stopped reading this thread and tried to forget about it.
 
2003-01-14 05:32:34 PM
Just on an ironic note, until late August, the webmaster of Pete's forum was an underaged girl. No, he didn't kill her, instead she turned 18.. She did claim to have done drugs with the Who's bassist, that ought to be worth something to the tabloids.
 
2003-01-14 05:32:43 PM
He wouldn't have had all of those popup problems if he used Mozilla.
 
2003-01-14 05:32:53 PM
I've never liked this man, ever since seeing him in an interview where he acted like a pompous limey. When i heard this story, i was happy. But now that i think of it, its such an awful accusation, that i guess i will give him the benefit of the doubt unless he is found guilty. People love to believe gossip.
 
2003-01-14 05:33:12 PM
By the way, who would read a child sex abuse book written by Pete Townshend?

Having read one of his poetry books, I feel confident in saying that no one should read any of his books ever.
 
2003-01-14 05:34:06 PM
as much as id like to believe that pete is innocent, i dont know...

also, that thing about "only the strong willed being able to resist kiddy porn" seemed to be a freudian slip if i ever saw one.
 
2003-01-14 05:34:36 PM


Innocent until proven guilty.
 
2003-01-14 05:35:05 PM
Move over "twinkie defense", make way for the "tinnitus defense".
 
2003-01-14 05:35:36 PM
MrGumboPants

Paying to view kiddie porn is subsidizing cruelty to children. That's what Pete did.

Viewing kiddie porn on the Net without paying for it is sick, but is not subsidizing it (unless an ad on their site triggers a purchase of some sort from you).

Is it less morally reprehensible to view kiddie porn for free than to pay to view it?
 
2003-01-14 05:35:43 PM
MGP For the record, you're not creeping me out- you have a political/social viewpoint and you're expressing it. I don't think it's fair to make someone feel like a "creep" for doing that, even when the subject matter of the conversation is by nature "creepy"

I think the fact that child pornography injures kids by its very existence makes it different then most other forms of pornography.
 
2003-01-14 05:35:56 PM
Miles_OToole, I was waiting for someone to bring out the "Mozilla would have protected him from popups" argument. I love that one. :)
 
2003-01-14 05:37:31 PM
Let me clarify my earlier post... that should have read "your girl of legal age" and was to imply that role-playing is entirely different than photos of the real thing...
 
43%
2003-01-14 05:38:46 PM
that i guess i will give him the benefit of the doubt unless he is found guilty

Who knows if he looked or he didn't, he's already been tried and convicted as a pedophile in the media. A real trial doesn't even matter.

Time for the water test.
 
2003-01-14 05:39:42 PM
I was waiting for someone to bring out the "Mozilla would have protected him from popups" argument. I love that one. :)

I couldn't resist...and was surprised that no one had said it yet. Hell, it's become a cliche here as much as the kitty.

/surfing popup free with Mozilla
 
2003-01-14 05:39:42 PM
Damn you, Mex. After reading your post, I looked up the lyrics and now I have the burden of this knowledge.

"Shoulder-deep," eh? Eww. :P
 
2003-01-14 05:39:50 PM
Mr GumboPants:

This reminds me of a classic episode of Twilight Zone -- "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street" -- because anytime anyone says or appears to do something suspicious, everyone else starts attacking them.

Farkers can be such idiots.
 
2003-01-14 05:40:23 PM
Mr_Crink
Excellent job of making MrGumboPants' point for him. When you're done arresting everyone who's looked at kid porn, start after those who defended them, because they must not be right in the head.

Won't someone please think of the children? Oh, that's where we started, isn't it?
 
2003-01-14 05:40:45 PM
43%,

Absolute gospel. Fact is in a media sound byte culture, allegation is all it takes to destroy.
 
2003-01-14 05:43:14 PM
FlakMonkey - Read the lyrics again. You're missing the point.
 
2003-01-14 05:43:27 PM
WithaK An ex-friend of mine was accused of molesting a child. He was damn near killed before it ever went to trial. Is that enough for ya? Pedo's are about the most loathed person in the country (even below terrorists)My ex-friend was found guilty BTW...

All's I gots to say is that this thread will, I hope, NOT lead to any dead kittens...

*hopes REALLY hard*
 
2003-01-14 05:44:14 PM
"Is it less morally reprehensible to view kiddie porn for free than to pay to view it?"

"I think the fact that child pornography injures kids by its very existence makes it different then most other forms of pornography."

I'm double quoting a couple of people, and though I'm not comfortable 'taking' this side of the argument, I might as well follow it to the logical conclusion.

This is just like the drugs-->terrorism arguments, or the Nike-->Child Abuse, or the time honored pornography-->rape chestnut.

Terrorism, Child Abuse and Rape are all crimes, deservedly so. But the skeptic in me says there's a witch hunt on when you we blame the consumer for the producer's activities. That's sketchy, half-assed logic in my mind. Consumers are *easy* to catch. They're not professional. They make a good public show, but change absolutely nothing. Pete Townsend's share of blame, in an economic sense, for perpetuating the child porn business is microscopic, statistically irrelevant.

If I buy a backyard wrestling tape, am I responsible for the kid who gets killed? What if I buy it second hand?

I just think it's too murky to ruin someone's good name over, unless they were caught *making* said porn, or distributing it in some fashion to make money.
 
2003-01-14 05:44:19 PM
Mr.Hanky writes: I wish my college profs bought the "one page per year of research" argument.

It's interesting that you should say that. My college experience must have been quite different from yours. There was almost never a lower limit on what was acceptable; but, there was almost always an upper limit. Writing assignments would typically warn students not to play with font sizes or margins to squeeze past the absolute maximum number of pages. If the paper looked suspiciously long, the TAs might ask for a disk and do a word count.
 
2003-01-14 05:44:42 PM
yes, the kids.

I wouldn't mind the death penalty for child pornographers at all. They farking deserve it....

and if Pete is guilty, kill his old ass too. I really don't have any farking tolerance for sick farks like that.
 
2003-01-14 05:46:15 PM
Calm down people.

MGP is simply stating that we can't let our laws get out of hand. All laws must be fair & just.

To the best of my knowledge it is illegal to set up a "teen" site which depitcs a 40 year old+ woman parading around sexually while being presented as though they were under 18.

Yes taking pictures of your 80 year old girlfriend in a school uniform and pigtails and labeling them teen pictures is still illegal.

I know I'm bummed out about it too.
 
2003-01-14 05:47:27 PM
MrGumboPants

Are you suggesting that our society becomes complacent with child pornography by not punishing the consumer? I'm not sure I understand.
 
2003-01-14 05:47:56 PM
Don't worry about the kids. The kids are alright.
 
2003-01-14 05:48:04 PM
Since...1997? I learned my lesson about pay for porn about then. Uh, anyone recall newsgroups? I never had to pay for online porn again. But there are some incredibly nasty shiat on newsgroups and many times you DON'T know what you've clicked or downloaded.

I don't feel sorry for him. He should have known by now about all this.
 
2003-01-14 05:48:54 PM
whatever crazy farking mind control uber triple decker incestuous fantasy you have, someone probably has a fantasy for you here. and, noone was hurt making these texts.

for the record, all of my fantasies are sane. not even a coughing fetish for lil ol' me, heh.
 
2003-01-14 05:48:56 PM
I HATE child molestors. I don't care if they're famous or not...I'd personally like to see them castrated and burned at the stake. I realize I have an anger issue here, but I really, really hate these f*cking bastards!!!
 
2003-01-14 05:49:12 PM
MGB I respectfully think you are incorrect.

If we all agree that it is illegal and should be illegal to have sexual relations with a child under any circumstances because of the injuries it causes to the child, how can child pornography be made without injuring the kid? That is why its existence is injurious.

Do you think a film or pictures of an actual rape should be distributed and legally viewed?
 
2003-01-14 05:50:19 PM
The world would be a better place if everyone just stuck to hentai.
 
2003-01-14 05:50:26 PM
I completely agree with Toxicsafe. Obviously most of you only read TSG's description of the paper. While I find it difficult to believe that the words Russian, Orphanage and Boys came up with 2 year-old rape pics, I agree with his observations about "lolita" etc. I also see nothing wrong with being curious, and you huys are obviously assholes for thinking you wouldn't feel even a little curious to see how prolific this shiat is after the experiences from his own life and those related to him by close friends.
 
2003-01-14 05:50:49 PM
Whether Peter Townshend is a pedophile or not, this sort of shiat is sick. It's bad enough that people would look at this stuff, but to actually _make_ it... you have to be one sick individual.
 
2003-01-14 05:51:26 PM
"Are you suggesting that our society becomes complacent with child pornography by not punishing the consumer? I'm not sure I understand."

No, I'm saying that I'm a skeptic when it comes to the idea of sting operations are even putting a tiny dent in the demand. Complacent is what we are right now.. terribly proud of ourselves that we over punish people who have an extremely low involvement in the *business* of child pornography while never admitting that the real producers are rarely caught.
 
2003-01-14 05:52:04 PM
For all you saying that Townsend has "already been convicted by the media" or "Let's give him a chance", this seems pretty cut and dry to me; he found a site advertising child pornography and entered his credit card number in order to view it. He admits that. That's illegal. Case closed. This whole research alibi is a joke. If he wasn't famous it wouldn't be considered for a second and he'd already be in jail. Which Farker posted that comment: "I cut his head off to see what was inside."?
 
2003-01-14 05:52:35 PM
I also see nothing wrong with being curious, and you huys are obviously assholes for thinking you wouldn't feel even a little curious to see how prolific this shiat is after the experiences from his own life and those related to him by close friends.

I disagree. I definitely see something wrong when your curiousity harms another person, especially a child. I can honestly say I would never be curious enough to want to look at a 2 year old being raped.
 
2003-01-14 05:53:09 PM
MGB you are absolutely correct that not everyone who views child porn is a molester. You are absolutely correct that someone who purchases a small amount of child pornography is a terribly small part of the problem. That is why Townsend will probably not do hard time even if he is guilty.

Although his reputation may be shot, that is a criticism more fairly directed to the media and society, not the law prohibiting possession of child pornography.
 
2003-01-14 05:53:23 PM
The paper reads much better if you imagine Alan Rickman's character in Dogma reading it.

that or i've been at work too long today.
 
2003-01-14 05:54:00 PM
Artman,

But there are some incredibly nasty shiat on newsgroups and many times you DON'T know what you've clicked or downloaded.

True. And this is what I meant before when I mentioned the risk of a McCarthyistic episode. Even if you delete those images, there's still a chance they are retrievable.

It becomes not unlike the cocaine on dollar bills. You could unknowingly have cocaine tainted dollar bills. If the govt. wants to seize your property, they can do so with nothing more than the evidence of one dollar bill found on your person laced with cocaine.

I'm not ready to go the route of MGP's argument that the end consumer shouldn't be prosecuted. But there should be checks and ballances to make sure that innocent and unsuspecting people don't get crucified.
 
2003-01-14 05:54:35 PM
So what is Townshend guilty of? He looked at some images on a website, didn't even keep them, and wrote some tirades on his web diary about how much it worried him and wondered out loud what to do about it. How does putting him away do anything to bring justice to guys in Russia performing the acts and taking the pictures?
 
2003-01-14 05:54:52 PM
"If we all agree that it is illegal and should be illegal to have sexual relations with a child under any circumstances because of the injuries it causes to the child, how can child pornography be made without injuring the kid? That is why its existence is injurious."

Correct. Bringing it into existence should be a crime, a huge crime.

But what about replicating it? Or text? Or CGI stuff? Or (as is usually the case) simply viewing it?

It's not the existence that is injurious, it's the creation. You might think I'm splitting hairs, but I see a big difference.
 
2003-01-14 05:54:55 PM
"CanuckGuy
Let the person who doesn't laugh at ArkieBoy's Photoshops cast the first stone."

I haven't thought too much of the constant Homoerotic and S&M references in his photoshops. I guess my Maplethorpe gene must be repressed or something.

But I'll keep watching and waiting for a funny one to come along. So far, uh, no.

On the subject of Townsend I have a big problem with surfing being considered a crime. A big one. Now if it can be proven that he went beyond surfing the web ie newsgroup swaps or cd burning, that's a different issue.
 
2003-01-14 05:56:42 PM
Quoth Joe Rogan

"If I'm walking down the street, and I see a sign that says 'dudes blowin donkeys', I'm going in once. I got nothing against dudes and I got nothing against donkeys, but if I can pay a reasonable sum of money to watch a guy suck an animals dick, I'm going to go."

I got nothin.
 
2003-01-14 05:56:53 PM
Also those images that CanuckGuy sarcasticaly posted were probably from a charity group that Pete supported.
P.S. dotn't think I'm some pro-Pete Townsend nut, I hate almost every Who song I have ever heard
 
2003-01-14 05:57:06 PM
Pedophile seems to be the 'witch' label of today. Our culture truly HAS gone off the deep end with it. It's to the point where you can just say "this person is a pedophile" and regardless of proof, their reputation is completely trashed.

Age plays a lot too. What kind of pedophile is really a pedophile? How old were the 'kids' in the pictures?

4? 8? 11?

15?

because naked pictures of a 16 year old is considered 'child porn' by legal standards, which is farked up. These are people who just a few hundered years ago would allready be starting families, and now our culture decides that you're not an adult till you're 18, and anyone attratced to someone under that age is a pervert?

Can any straight man here really say he doesn't want to bang the olsen twins? I guess so, but then, some people like their women 80+

Child porn is sick, twisted, wrong. yes. CHILD porn. But what age are you no longer a child? the obvious extremes are there. An 8 year old girl is obviously a child, but I know a girl who's 16 now, was 13 when we met, and was fully developed then, hasn't changed a bit. I mistook her for being OLDER than me...

I'm not one to answer the question. An arbitrary age law surely isn't the answer, and opinions vary from person to person, but the system we have now is extreme, stupid, and just doesn't make sense.

The man who goes on a newsgroup and downloads pictures of kids is sick, yes. But is he a criminal? I don't know. It's not an easy question by any means, but I can't just blindly say 'yes' because society says so. I can't think of what he's done that's worthy of punishment other than having a deep dark secret.

When a 16 year old girl takes a topless picture of herself and gives them to her boyfriend, and gets busted for producing child porn, the system is farked. Plain and simple.

I think at the very least, everyone needs to calm down, don't be so quick to burn the guy looking at pictures and focus more on the guy MAKING the pictures.

(and yeah, paying for one of these sites is when it starts being an easier question to answer. he paid the people who made these pictures, there's something wrong there)

Some people are attracted to youth ('barley legal', 'faces with braces', 'bring em young', the lines of porn movies made by stars just turning legal. Don't try to tell me they aren't), yeah. Some people are attracted to old people, or scat, or cartoons. But what's the huge differece between a guy looking at a picture of a 16 year old, and a guy who rents a copy of 'just turned 18'? a year and a few months?

I guess there's always something you can cry to get people in trouble. "witch", "commie", "pedophile!". Wether they TRULY are or not hasn't really ever made a difference...

You hear news stories about people being outraged that 'virtual child porn' isn't illegal... and you have to realize it's becoming less about protecting kids, and more being angry at what we deem sick.

Afterall, how do you hurt a 3d model? =\
 
2003-01-14 05:57:14 PM
MGB you are splitting hairs because it can't exist if it wasn't created.

I don't think I understand. Are you arguing that once it has been created the injury ceases, and people viewing it doesn't exacerbate the injury? Because I disagree with that proposition.
 
2003-01-14 05:57:24 PM
Also for the record, child pron is sick and the bastards that actually set up the sessions, those bastards should be sanded down with a dremel tool.
 
2003-01-14 05:58:44 PM
It doesn't help his case that he wrote "Rough Boys"


Tough boys, Running the streets Come a little closer
Rough toys, Under the sheets, Nobody knows here
Rough boys, Come over here, I wanna bite and kiss you
I wanna see what I can find
 
2003-01-14 05:59:00 PM
Toxicsafe writes: So what is Townshend guilty of? He looked at some images on a website, didn't even keep them...

If Townshend had stumbled across pictures on a newsgroup, I might be inclined to agree. But, by paying money for child porn, he has encouraged child porn.
 
2003-01-14 06:01:26 PM
Actually, this treatise (written years ago) makes me feel a little better. Regardless, it seems clear that he is unnaturally drawn to the stuff and he did support a site, which hurts the fight to get rid of this stuff.

In Britain, if you can demonstrate that you had a valid reason (such as research) then visiting a child porn site may not be illegal. I doubt any charges will be pressed.

All the same, a little more of Townshend's bizarreness comes to light- this time supporting, if ashamedly or unrealizingly, a kiddie porn site.

So, like, Townshend was my favorite rock star and Kirby Puckett was my hometown baseball hero. I know better than to hold celebs up to higher standards than the rest of us, but this has been a lame year in that department.

In response to the person yesterday who wondered why the news is always full of farkups like this, I think there's a reassuring answer- what makes the news are exceptions. A lot of badness is the exception instead of the rule. It's when stuff like this is so commonplace that it doesn't make the news that it will really be sad.
 
2003-01-14 06:01:51 PM
I haven't read the whole thread so if this is a repeat, shoot me.

If I am not mistaken, there was proposed legislation that would make computer generated child porn illegal as well, this would also include morphing of a legal age girl to look underage.

That being said, anybody who produces child porn deserves to be an ass puppet in prison when they get caught.
 
2003-01-14 06:02:20 PM
I agree with MrGumboPants (though I wouldn't want his drycleaning bill.)

And I was strangely impressed to find that Townshend writes well and articulately. My hope is that when you farkers find yourself in the jurybox, that the magic and responsibility of being on a jury transforms your knee-jerk, hang-em-high statements. And when you find yourself in the defendant's seat, you do not get a jury of your peers.

Also note that his paper is dated January 2002 and not January 2003.

As an example of how technically ignorant many (but not in the FARK forums) are on this issue, I see that not only did Townshend's lawyer but also various officials I heard on the news todays were saying that it would be a crime to download the images. Of course, JUST VISITING the websites, or even having the pop-ups happen means that the images, in true Soviet Russia style, download to you.
 
2003-01-14 06:02:27 PM
SilverDraghyeon

So by that logic, we go easy on people downloading child pornography, and go after the those producing it. Except, in this case, they're in Russia, and we can't touch them. After a while, it becomes a well known fact that you can download choice kiddie-porn from Russian websites and it's totally cool. Meanwhile off in Russia, the production of explicit child pornography doubles, triples...

Now what?
 
2003-01-14 06:03:20 PM
OK, Eraser8, he paid to get in. He didn't care for it, but the guy in Russia made a buck of him anyway. Punish him severely?
 
2003-01-14 06:03:34 PM
btw: someone ban Mr_Crink for being such a moralistic moron.
 
2003-01-14 06:03:57 PM
Heuer,

That came up in one of the Pee-Wee threads. Someone said the supreme court ruled against that, saying that computer generated "fakes" were OK. I don't remember who said it though.
 
2003-01-14 06:04:54 PM
one of the times i was molested, i was photographed, it was in the 60's, looking at a sexualy oriented site one day i saw, naked teens and flashed, gee what if i'm there... i was tempted to see, but backed off.........and stopped looking at porn sites altogether...

i havent had my psyche rewarded and fawned over for decades, so it was easy,

obviously the web searching thing is real, it pays to go after the site owners big time, they are predators, seeking to re-injure past victims for money, the same way they injure kids today...the lurkers for those sites should be treated like johns who get busted on street sweeps, re-education... san francisco has a great program...

as for townsed?

same thing, let him finance a few hackers to go after them,
find the bussiness owners, and out them
 
2003-01-14 06:06:28 PM
Umm, Paradroid, searching for "Russia boys" isn't quite the same as "Russian" and "orphanages." Give it a try, you won't find much child porn - especially 2 minutes after you run the search, as Pete claims.
 
2003-01-14 06:06:53 PM
The problem with the law is that if I put a link here that led to a picture of child porn and you clicked on it not knowing what it was, you could still be held liable. Or I may be wrong.
 
2003-01-14 06:07:16 PM
LTG: "I don't think I understand. Are you arguing that once it has been created the injury ceases, and people viewing it doesn't exacerbate the injury? Because I disagree with that proposition."

Creation puts it in the category of 'Doing something awful to a human being', so I'm sure we both agree there.

But after that? Do I think that there is a real difference between an image that depicts the rape of a 12 year old using a real 12 year old and one that uses an 18 year old who *looks* 12? If you bar the creation part (which we agree on--illegal! bad!), I say that there's no difference between a 'falsified' image and a real one. People can look at whatever sick bullshiat they want as long as no one was hurt in the process.

And if you can't distinguish the two, and the consumer can't distinguish the two, it's a waste of time and money to go after consumers. *We* may think it's bad for the consumer (I know I do), but I also think drinking a bottle of JD every day is going to cause you to do some horrible things too. We step too close to 'thought police', arresting people with naked baby photos of their nephews on their mantle. There was a Canadian photographer a few years back who was in a huge court battle because she had nude photos of 10 year olds. She was very well known, professional, *not* a pornographer.

That's just too tricky a distinction to make, considering that I doubt it does anyone much good either way you slice it.
 
2003-01-14 06:07:54 PM
Heuer

One picture on your hard drive probably wouldn't be enough to convict you. Giving them your credit card is a different story, I believe.
 
2003-01-14 06:08:21 PM
Toxicsafe writes: He didn't care for it, but the guy in Russia made a buck of him anyway.

In my opinion, the crime isn't conditional on whether or not the purchaser was sexually aroused. The buck that went to the guy in Russia gives him the means to continue publishing his website. And, it gives him incentive to make more kiddie porn.
 
2003-01-14 06:09:56 PM
Lord_Dubu,

Thanks, that's what I thought but I couldn't recall the info from my vast wasteland of useless knowledge.
 
2003-01-14 06:10:17 PM
I like my rock n' rollers to be like Zeppelin. good ol' devil worship and red snapper...

incidentally, does anyone know if employers are able to track me posting here?
 
2003-01-14 06:10:21 PM
I'll second the statement you don't know what you've downloaded.

Many of you farkers have downloaded DeCSS and you don't know it and that's because there has been a campaign of sorts to place DeCSS into the comment fields within gifs. If you've visited my websites, you've downloaded a gif containing DeCSS.

And DeCSS isn't detected by any virus company's scanners. It will be detected when your hard drive is taken from you and inspected.

There are stories that Al Quaeda communicates on websites via steganography -- burying information in graphic pictures. Interested in Al Qaeda? Visited a link to an Al Qaeda sympathizer's website? You may have downloaded classified information or hidden Al Qaeda plans.

On the issue of the credit card use: simple answer: what is $14.95 to Pete Townshend if he were really doing collecting evidence he wants for the cops? more complex answer: if Townshend really was an abused child, it makes sense that he may have his own eternal demons that drive him to/from pedophile sites. Should we lock him up for that? Should we lock anyone up for ever visiting ANY site?

YOU WANT TO JAIL PEOPLE FOR VISITING A SITE?

Jesus, since when did Ashcroft join FARK?
 
2003-01-14 06:10:21 PM
Heuer writes: if I put a link here that led to a picture of child porn and you clicked on it not knowing what it was, you could still be held liable.

If a person doesn't know what he's about to see, it isn't a crime -- because there's no intent.
 
2003-01-14 06:11:43 PM
"Meanwhile off in Russia, the production of explicit child pornography doubles, triples...

Now what?"

This is the same question all of fundamentalist Islam is asking about us right now, you know?

The short answer is: political pressure.
The long answer is: You're stuck. Horrible things are allowed to happen in other countries, are documented, and there's not too much we can do about it. Price you pay for a free society.
 
2003-01-14 06:11:56 PM
FlameGirl

Yes, the credit card definately defines guilt. My concern would be for someone who has poor computer skills to get sucked into something on accident.
 
2003-01-14 06:11:59 PM
If we all agree that it is illegal and should be illegal to have sexual relations with a child under any circumstances because of the injuries it causes to the child, how can child pornography be made without injuring the kid? That is why its existence is injurious.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a case before the Supreme Court recently (past 2 or 3 years) where they were ruling on the legality of child pornography that didn't actually involve children? I believe the case had something to do with CGI/animated children. Since no children are being harmed in the production of this, is it illegal? If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled that it is still illegal.

More fuel for the fire.
 
2003-01-14 06:13:13 PM
MGB Your two examples (adults posing as children, and photos with artistic merit)create an entirely different analysis, which will have to wait for another day, because I'm headed home.
 
2003-01-14 06:13:54 PM
If this dumb ass was really researching these sites, he should have been smart enough to let someone else in on it, just in case he is searched for these files, etc. and nabbed in a dragnet. What a dumb thing to do.
 
2003-01-14 06:14:18 PM
incidentally, does anyone know if employers are able to track me posting here?

If they have it setup that way, they can indeed. A guy I worked with got fired about 6 months ago for his surfing activities, and they didn't have to go anywhere near his computer.
 
2003-01-14 06:15:03 PM
RandomBob writes: YOU WANT TO JAIL PEOPLE FOR VISITING A SITE?

I agree that merely visiting a site shouldn't be a crime. But, paying for child porn supports and ecourages child porn. The fact that an individual's personal contribution may be small isn't exonerating.

Personally, I think a first offense of paying for child porn ought to be punished by fine. Subsequent offenses ought to be punished by jail time. A first offense of PRODUCING child porn or TRAFFICKING in it ought to be punished very, very severely.
 
2003-01-14 06:15:56 PM
Mr_Crink-So if I see a hot 16yr old and for a second think about what it'd be like to sleep with her (which I wouldn't do wether or not society deemed it acceptable)does that make me some kind of sicko? Thinking and doing are not the same thing. I think about things all the time that'd i'd never do.
 
2003-01-14 06:16:54 PM
He gave his credit card info to a site with these sort of pictures on it, thats how they tracked him. He signed up for this information in the name of "research"
 
2003-01-14 06:17:08 PM
YOU WANT TO JAIL PEOPLE FOR VISITING A SITE

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
 
2003-01-14 06:17:13 PM
so, we deem Townsend complete trash for looking at pictures of sexually abused kids, because of how horrible it is to them, yet ignore the fact that he himself was probably sexually abused. Double standard, anyone?
 
2003-01-14 06:20:38 PM
Research or not, what he did is against the law. If he was abused, that in itself is a terrible thing but it does not exempt him from the prevailing law.
 
2003-01-14 06:21:32 PM
TOOL

Yes, 'Stinkfist' is about fisting. Hence the name. Hence the lyrics.

What, you didn't know? Who cares. Inside the Undertow album it has an Xray of a guy (presumed to be Maynard, but he has never given a definitive answer) with a candle shoved up his ass.

Oh no! All of that head banging, beer drinking, and lyric reciting you have done has been to the scribings and cater-calling of a self-stated bi-curious singer with a predelicition to the muddy manholes who you wouldn't give the time of day to on the streets.

HAHAHAHAH That's funny.

Grow up you farking homo/pedo phobes. Just because some guy is farked up in the head doesn't mean his artistic work has any less merit. TOOL rocks. The Who STILL rock. Seperate the artist's image from the art and you'll find you just might like stuff you wouldn't give a chance to listen to before.
 
2003-01-14 06:22:40 PM
Eraser8:"Personally, I think a first offense of paying for child porn ought to be punished by fine."

Fair enough. How about public humiliation? How about a bunch of headlines calling you a pedophile? How much further should it go?
 
2003-01-14 06:24:49 PM
Toxicsafe

That is, unfortunately, a casualty of being famous. Shoplifting is a much lesser crime (I think everyone can agree) and look at how much poor little Winona Ryder's name was tarnished after her episode.
 
2003-01-14 06:24:55 PM
Toxicsafe writes: How about public humiliation? How about a bunch of headlines calling you a pedophile? How much further should it go?

The law has little control over the headlines. But, there is a benefit to public humiliation: it discourages others from committing the crime.
 
2003-01-14 06:24:56 PM
FlameGirl

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

very true.

...how's that fit in with the discussion?
 
2003-01-14 06:27:22 PM
SilverDraghyeon

I guess I'm saying that you have the right to view whatever porn sites you wish...but when it is considered to harm another individual (ie: child pornography, as it is) you don't have that right.

What an atrocious sentence...I apologize.
 
2003-01-14 06:28:05 PM
Not to be repetitive but: am I the only one who thinks that, if by some chance he was just doing a research paper (just like Pee-Wee and Gary Glitter I bet), he could have just taken information from the many MANY online encyclopedias? Y'know, those things they call "reference libraries"? Doncha think Encarta will have a more scholarly and more informative edge to it than, say, i.e.: PrepubescentSlutBoys.com? Or did he need illustrations?
 
2003-01-14 06:28:09 PM
candyman is here!
 
2003-01-14 06:28:14 PM
It makes me very sad to say that I think Pete's "research" angle is a load of horse shiat.

I'm going to go home from work in about two minutes, "research" a blunt, and ponder the farkedupedness of the world.
 
2003-01-14 06:29:33 PM
Forget this whole child porn deal...

I wanna know where this free cocaine line is!!!

and tool you idiot, pedophiles are the absolute scum of the earth, if i could, i would form a vigilante group to hunt down every last kiddy fiddler in the world and torture and brutally murder each and everyone i could find..

but that is just my opinion
 
2003-01-14 06:30:06 PM
When I heard this story on the news this morning, I thought, "Yeah, right 'autobiography'...suuuurrre". But I gotta tell ya, after reading what he's written, I believe him. Now, if I had never read the document, my morning's opinion wouldn't have changed. I like what he has to say and I like the way he wrote it. With the information available to us at this point, I believe him.
 
2003-01-14 06:30:31 PM
Here's the problem. It's like making viewing rape illegal. So, I'm walking along and I hear screams from a building. I look in the building and see a woman getting raped. I think about going to call the cops, but guess what? Viewing is illegal so I just keep my mouth shut and walk home. Later, I get hauled in. Why? There was camera on the building that filmed me watching what happened. They didn't get the rapist, but they know I saw it and bust me for having walked by. That's the situation here with child porn--guilt by association. Anyone who says that they've never seen it on the 'net is either so simple minded with their machine they don't use it for anything or is lying. I've seen it on the web, on newsgroups and in spam sent to my damn inbox. And, the crux is that my lovely MS OS loves to record all these things in caches. Because of this, there can be no sane debate because saying anything about how overboard this witchhunt has gone only means you side pornographers. This is the same view as the opinion that the "drug war" is stupid--you must be then siding with the drug cartels. My opinion is that the whole child porn industry has exploded not because of the 'net, but because they know the child porn laws protect the exploiters. After all, there are three types of people who view child porn. 1--Those who trip across it because of popups, spam, etc or were just willing to surf wherever. Having tripped across it, they're now guilty since any trace on their machine is enough to put them away. So, they sure as hell aren't going to say anything. 2-- Those who want it, who sure as hell aren't going to say anything, as well. 3-- Law Enforcement, who are so over worked that they called a major "world wide sting" operation that netted 130 people. Wow. Those kinds of numbers will certainly stop the kid farking in Arkansas mobile homes before watching football. Simply put, the law has banned the citizens from any effort of protecting itself nor having any rational debate on how to effectively handle the problem.
 
2003-01-14 06:32:58 PM
I think he's innocent. You guy's are easily led. His letter sounded sincere, right?
 
2003-01-14 06:33:03 PM
What is really strange about the whole situation is that not even the dude running ruskietoddlerporker.com is a child molester unless he is the guy in the pics porking Russian toddlers. He's just an entrepreneur in a really messed up business. We can all agree that war profiteers are assholes, but are they murderers?
 
2003-01-14 06:33:19 PM
Using the Bible Code, i see where it proves he done it.
 
2003-01-14 06:33:36 PM
I'm your wicked Uncle Ernie;

I'm glad you won't see or hear me,

As I fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about.

Your mother left me here to mind you,

And I'm doing exactly what I bleedin' well want to,

Fiddling about,
fiddling about, fiddle about.

Down with your bedclothes,

Up with your nightshirt.

Fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about.

You won't "shiate"

As I fiddle "abite."

Fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about.

 
 
2003-01-14 06:34:06 PM
I feel sorry for Pete. It seems persecuting people for a smattering of pictures on your hard drive is the latest popular witch hunt. It's a label like that that can ruin you in a second. Seriously though, I get child porn spam in my hotmail account. I've never entered any personal information in any porn site. I'm sure I'm being sold out by other places I've given my email too and fit the demographic as a person who can tolerate porn spam, but my point is that kiddie porn is practically being shoved in your face on the internet.
 
2003-01-14 06:35:08 PM
Favorite quote from the paper:

"Booze and drugs are here to stay."

Woo Hoo!!!!
 
2003-01-14 06:35:47 PM
ack, sorry about the line spaceing and layout and all...
 
2003-01-14 06:35:55 PM
FlameGirl, don't take any offense to this, I really like your attitude and discussion style.

But you seem to fall back on 'drug war' level logic.

And we SHOULD prosecute those paying for child porn. I allready said that, you pay, you're helping. But the images themselves don't make criminals in my eyes, they're made by criminals.
 
2003-01-14 06:35:55 PM
Keep in mind, oh defenders of scum...

Townsend has ALREADY ADMITTED to searching for, purchasing access to and downloading child pornography. He just claims he has a really good reason for doing it.

There's no "is he guilty". He's already told you he is.
 
2003-01-14 06:35:57 PM
I'm with Jenoffer on this. It seems like he was putting a lot of work into what a bunch of people think is a cover story to hid his own pedophilia. I don't believe that; I grew up with this guy's music, and find it hard to believe an artist of his caliber is a sicko. The worst thing about this whole ordeal is how he's already been tried in the court of public opionion of one of the most horrible crimes in the world.

If he's innocent, I hope everyone that accused him eats a load of hot crap.
 
2003-01-14 06:36:09 PM
I know this is going to rub the wrong way on a lot of people, but it must be said.

There are two types of porno. And yes, even two types of childporn.

The first type, is normal nudity, as if you were undressing for a shower, changing clothes or just for the sake of being naked because you like it.

The second type, is sexual nudity. In where that person is showing sexual pleasure to themselves or from/to another person.

The first type of child porn, while maybe bad. Isn't evil. The child could have our maybe wasn't having the pictures taken against thier will. Most of the time, a child doesn't care if they are clothed or naked (depending how how they are brought up tho). And even some kids will let you take pictures of themself while naked. I have a younger sister, who back in the days when she was 8, wanted anybody to take pictures of her while she was in the bath.. but only the bath. But now that shes 14, she has out grown it and gets somewhere between pissed off yet shy and giggly when ever we in the family bring it up. But a naked kid just being naked is not evil.

But the second type of pictures is evil!, picutes of childen being raped or in some other sexual activity. That is when it is evil, no doubt. There are some who are young age who are sexually active and want to be active in it, but for the most part, those under the age of 14 are sexually clueless. They know what it is, but they are to scared to do it. They just don't feel right with it.

But any way, if he just had a few pictures from the local nuditest beach, no harm. If it was a few home shots of some kid, it all depends on how happy the kid looks, and just how bad the pictures has the child showing its body off. but if it was raped/sexual pictures of a child, he needs to die by being burned alive, regardless if he was doing it for "research".
 
2003-01-14 06:37:17 PM
Glenlivid, you find it hard to beleive an artist is a sicko?

What the hell planet are YOU from?
 
2003-01-14 06:39:44 PM
Silver

I don't think we disagree. I think there is a monumental difference between viewing child porn and paying for it. That's when the viewer becomes a criminal, for lack of a better term (in my most humble of opinions).

But I will say that anyone who gets off on pictures of a 2 year old being raped, whether they pay for it or not, is a dirtbag.
 
2003-01-14 06:40:02 PM
Pathetic.

there are two kinds of people who care about crime: the kinds who care about crimes and the crimes who care about convictions.

It's pretty simple to differentiate: those who care about crime look at how it started, what it led to, what the intent was, and how that can be discouraged.

those who care about convictions, look at the end result, and work their way back, discounting everything that goes against their ideas and believing everything that supports them.

You'll all jump on the fact that he may have been abused as proof of a sexual psychosis, but ignore the chance that his past could lead to research.

You'll quote his lyrics as some kind of proof, yet ignore when he writes plainly on the subject.

He writes 6 pages on exactly what he's found, includes actual research and tips to parents, and yet you think he's hiding something, because it's the only way you can demonize him.

even after he came forward to the press before he had ever been named.

your need to feel superior is obvious, because it's very plain to see, looking at the events of the last week juxtaposed against this year-old essay, that it all falls into place.

That you refuse to add 2+2 shows your immorality, not his.
 
2003-01-14 06:40:04 PM
Everyone seems to be more concerned with prosecuting (willing)witnesses to the crime(which I have no problem with) ,than those actually commiting the crime. Townshend paid money to a website based in Texas. Why is nothing being done about the website? Apparently, in Texas, it's all right to rape children, but not to watch.
 
2003-01-14 06:40:07 PM
He probably initiated the "research project" a year ago so he would have an alibi if the cops got wind of his sick little perversion.

"Honest, I'm not a pervert, I was just conducting some research."
 
2003-01-14 06:40:49 PM
Silver Draghyeon: I find it hard to believe an artist of his caliber is a pedophile. I have as much right to defend the guy on my flimsy reasoning as the rest of you do for persecuting him on yours.
 
2003-01-14 06:40:50 PM
Beldraen, your analogy is inapt. Viewing child porn isn't a crime unless you knew and intended to view child porn. If you rent a DVD from Blockbuster and it happens to be child porn, you haven't committed a crime. If someone send you an e-mail containing an unsolicited picture of a two-year-old being raped, that isn't a crime either. What is a crime is keeping child porn, producing it, collecting it, disseminating it, exchanging it, etc. And, that is reasonable.
 
2003-01-14 06:42:11 PM
Kotton writes: The first type, is normal nudity

Normal nudity isn't pornography.
 
2003-01-14 06:42:14 PM
FlameGirl, then we agree :)

I just, personally, don't equate being a dirtbag with being morth my time, or the courts.

The second he takes an uneasy step towards my daughter (or any child for that matter) is when it becomes worthy of my *cracks knuckles* ...'attention'.
 
2003-01-14 06:44:03 PM
Like the Priest said after he came out of the X-rated movie, "That was possibly the most disgusting, perverted, misguided thing I've ever seen . . but I need to see it just one more time to be sure."
 
2003-01-14 06:44:07 PM
Well put, Kerouac. I think Pete has always tried to create socially relevant work, and much of what he has done shows a certain amount of research on his part.

Either way, I let the court try him because that is their job not mine.
 
2003-01-14 06:44:44 PM
SilverDraghyeon

I hear you. In a perfect world, every child would have a father (or parent, even) to protect them from bad guys...
 
2003-01-14 06:44:49 PM
Kerouac writes: You'll all jump on the fact that he may have been abused as proof of a sexual psychosis, but ignore the chance that his past could lead to research.

His motives (outside of knowing and desiring to access child pornography) aren't relevant. The money he paid encourages child pornograhpy -- and, that's where the crime is.
 
2003-01-14 06:45:36 PM
in my early days of searching for porn on the alt.binaries newsgroups... someone had posted some kiddie porn on a "normal" xxx site. Back then you (or at least I) had to download the file and open it before knowing what you were getting... cross fingers, hope for the best. I got a pic of what appeared to be a boy and girl, both about age 7 or 8 simiulating some sex act.

It was perverted and wrong. I looked at it for about 6 seconds, long enough to determine that it was actually child porn... deleted it, and went on with my life, perfectly content to never lay eyes upon anything that resembled what I had just seen.

I thought of my own children and how I must always be sure to protect them from the evil people that lurk out there in this world.

But to say that I would be encouraged to seek out more? Or that I was terminally uncurious by not seeking out more child porn? That's silly. Same effect when I saw some of those suicide photos or crime scene photos of decapitated bodies or shotgun victims over on consumptionjunction.com. It didnt make me curious for more. It cemented my opinion that crap like that turns my stomach.

my 2 cents.

Nor did I write an essay on how one might accidently stumble onto child porn in case the cops busted me.
 
2003-01-14 06:46:51 PM
Before anyone else puts their foot in their mouth like Casey2 just did, please read Kerouac's post.

Or else, STFU.


And please: it's spelt 'Townshend'


thx
 
2003-01-14 06:48:10 PM
I wanna know where this free cocaine line is!!! In the 80's it was everywhere! I guess you missed it.
 
2003-01-14 06:48:48 PM
01-14-03 06:42:11 PM Eraser8
Kotton writes: The first type, is normal nudity

Normal nudity isn't pornography.


Tell that to the people who make the laws. They say that any picute that has body that isn't fully clothed, (hell, even those who are clothed but in very limited amounts) are to be pornographic.
 
2003-01-14 06:50:57 PM
Am I the only one amazed that a 70s rock star uses the internet?

Regardless, please let him be innocent. I love Pete's work, and don't want to see him as a criminal. It's a shame the media effect will damn him even if he is innocent, but at least I'll know he's no pedo.
 
2003-01-14 06:51:07 PM
Eraser8: You've not been paying attention to the news. There was a cop who was busted because his IP address was traced. The cop had been surfing, found the site, and deleted it all (so he thought) off the machine. Turns out there were still a few images left in his cache. The whole "I didn't intend to view this stuff" doesn't hold. I agree with that that is the way it should be, but that's not been happening.
 
2003-01-14 06:51:27 PM
Eraser8-Depends on who you ask. Some people think the Statue of David is pornography. Just ask the asshats who covered up Lady Justice.
 
2003-01-14 06:51:43 PM
And before anyone else jumps on this tired train:

Eraser8 - are you claiming that it would all be perfectly ok if he'd loooked at free child porn? is the credit card the only issue here?

No? then stop using the argument.

The one thing that's absolutely uncontested here is that he went looking for it.

The question is "why?"

Those of you unwilling to look at this question with a clear head oughta go hang out in the Breast Enlarger thread, because all you're concerned about is being judgemental - and judgemental people may be the only category that outnumbers porn on the Internet.
 
2003-01-14 06:53:13 PM
fact:

the sick fark PAID to view this stuff

fact:

Profit is what drives economy thus driving those that produce child porn

THUS, as a paying consumer, he enabled if not encouraged child porn.

If you actually believe that it takes years to write a 6 page "research" paper on child porn and Russian boys getting raped are integral to the crap he wrote you are an idiot. Go ahead and check out.

Yes, innocent until but come on, use your heads.
 
2003-01-14 06:53:51 PM
Normal nudity isn't pornography.

Tell that to the people who make the laws. They say that any picute that has body that isn't fully clothed, (hell, even those who are clothed but in very limited amounts) are to be pornographic.


If that was true, someone should have called the cops on my 9th grade health teacher for solliciting pornography to a group of minors when he made us watch that video of the woman giving birth.... (shudders)
 
2003-01-14 06:54:35 PM
No, stinkfist is not about fisting. It's about desensitizatoin. Hence the lyrics:

"Something kinda sad about
the way that things have come to be.
Desensitized to everything.
What became of subtlety?"

The refrences to fisting make a point about how the things that are talked about have changed so much. The farther into the borderline (or anal cavity) we are,the more we are trying to reach out and feel something that gets a responce out of us.

It also goes back to the liner notes that talk about the anesthetia Ketamine.

/Tool freak
 
2003-01-14 06:56:05 PM
FlameGirl writes "...In a perfect world, every child would have a father (or parent, even) to protect them from bad guys..."

In about 90-96% of child abuse cases, it is the parent (or another well-known family member) who is the abuser.
 
2003-01-14 06:58:03 PM
In about 90-96% of child abuse cases, it is the parent (or another well-known family member) who is the abuser.

The poster arrived at this figure by the very scientific method of "pulling out of ass".
 
2003-01-14 06:58:19 PM
The only one who is CLEARLY NOT INNOCENT is the website. It is the worst kind of selective prosecution.
 
2003-01-14 06:58:23 PM
DisneyOnIce

I agree with that statistic if you're talking about garden variety child sexual abuse. I'd be interested in seeing a similar statistic on actual child pornographers, if you want to muster one up.
 
2003-01-14 06:58:42 PM
Kotton writes: Tell that to the people who make the laws.

They already know it. Nudity alone -- according to United States law -- does not amount to pornography. Nudity has to be overty sexual, lewd or lascivious to qualify.
 
2003-01-14 06:58:47 PM
If you actually believe that it takes years to write a 6 page "research" paper on child porn and Russian boys getting raped are integral to the crap he wrote you are an idiot. Go ahead and check out.



If you're too daft to figure out what you're accusing - he's writing his autobiography - a whole BOOK, and this is an article he wrote for his web site - you're either an idiot or an asshole, and ought not to be commenting on what you know little about.
 
2003-01-14 06:59:27 PM
 
2003-01-14 07:00:01 PM

01-14-03 06:44:44 PM FlameGirl
SilverDraghyeon

I hear you. In a perfect world, every child would have a father (or parent, even) to protect them from bad guys...


It seems to me, that all lot of the child porn being made, is being made from that child parent(s). The parent(s), who are sick in the head, are able to brainwash each-other, themselves and thier own child, to about what they are about to do to that child or have that child do is "normal". Seems like a lot of kids arn't safe.

Anybody who remembers that story from floria where the mother and father where helping thier daugher be more comfortable with her body by having her be naked on film with one or the other knows just what i'm talking about.
 
2003-01-14 07:00:49 PM
FlameGirl, that's the PROBLEM.

A good percentage of the time, the producers ARE the parents...

they say it's actually a common male fear, that they'll grow to be attracted to their daughter, but that for normal people, fatherly instincts kick in.
 
2003-01-14 07:00:50 PM
Did anyone see that article in Wired a few months back about child porn? The main focus of the article is that in cases of child porn intent is not considered at ALL. As soon as the image appears on the screen you are guilty, if you didn't know what is was or not. There are cases where people admit to seeing it while surfing for 'regular' porn and their statements are considered confessions by the DA.
 
2003-01-14 07:00:57 PM
It's funny how you can type a couple of sentences and people will begin interpreting it all kinds of different strange ways.

maybe that's what I did when I took MrGumboPants' comments as saying that viewing child pornography is a harmless pastime.

I happen to think it is reprehensible. I also believe that the viewing of child pornography fuels the desire of pedophiles and pushes them that much closer to acting out their fantasies and harming real live children. Look at the patterns that pedophiles follow and you will see that feeding that fantasy through child pornography is a common factor.

Asolutben- The TSG article specifically refers to photos of the rape of a two-year old child. Your example is nowhere in that ballpark.

If finding that morally repugnant makes me a "moralistic moron" then you need to examine your own values, or develop some, Chuck_the_plant.
 
2003-01-14 07:01:22 PM
Attn: Jobe.

You're not paying attention.

Read my post sending you to read Kerouac before you comment like an idiot.

Try again.
 
2003-01-14 07:03:12 PM
Kerouac-You seem to be saying that wether you pay for it or not, looking at child porn makes you a sick f.uck.
If so, then I agree. As for his "I was doing research" defense, I don't know. I'd love to believe him but it seems kinda hinky.
 
2003-01-14 07:03:18 PM
Beldraen writes: The whole "I didn't intend to view this stuff" doesn't hold.

It absolutely does hold. There can be no crime without intent. The fact that a policeman was arrested isn't particularly illuminating. People arrested for murder often say that they didn't do it. Does that mean that actual innocence isn't a defense to the murder charge?
 
2003-01-14 07:03:42 PM
Does anyone else feel that we all let the severity of the crime affect the level of "reasonable doubt" that we give defendants?
 
2003-01-14 07:04:23 PM
page 4, TSG

since 1997 I have been preparing...........

once again, years in "preparation" to write a few lousy pages. wake the fark up Kerouac

and yes, I am an asshole.
 
2003-01-14 07:05:20 PM
Kerouac asks: are you claiming that it would all be perfectly ok if he'd loooked at free child porn? is the credit card the only issue here?

In the case of someone who views the material only once? Yes.

No? then stop using the argument.

This should teach you not to make assumptions about the views of others.
 
2003-01-14 07:05:54 PM
Let me clarify.

Wouldn't it be great if every parent was as caring and responsible as you, SilverDraghyeon?
 
2003-01-14 07:06:38 PM
You seem to be saying that wether you pay for it or not, looking at child porn makes you a sick f.uck.

No, I'm saying that the moral judgement on someone found to possess child porn has nothing to do with whether they paid for it or not.

In this case, he wilfully admits that he sought it out on the Internet, to see what turned up.

The question is "why".

And with all the facts currently on record, I am inclined to believe his sequence of events.
 
2003-01-14 07:06:59 PM
TommyymmoT writes: The only one who is CLEARLY NOT INNOCENT is the website. It is the worst kind of selective prosecution.

And, how do you propose for Britain to prosecute a crime that was committed in Texas?
 
2003-01-14 07:07:35 PM
once again, years in "preparation" to write a few lousy pages. wake the fark up Kerouac

Preparation to write a BOOK! A BOOK! The article on TSG is not the BOOK!
 
2003-01-14 07:09:56 PM
Mashuren writes: The poster arrived at this figure by the very scientific method of "pulling out of ass".

Maybe his ass is accurate. You never know.
 
2003-01-14 07:12:01 PM
page 4, TSG

since 1997 I have been preparing...........

once again, years in "preparation" to write a few lousy pages. wake the fark up Kerouac


And whre does it say it was THIS document?

why, look here....it's from his statement on Saturday:
""I have been writing my childhood autobiography for the past seven years. I believe I was sexually abused between the age of five and six and a half when in the care of my maternal grandmother who was mentally ill at the time.


wkae up, Jobe.

Eraser8: also from his statement on Saturday:
"On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. I did this purely to see what was there."


Sorry if i'm misreading you, but it was you who claimed that the motives weren't relevant, only that having paid for it was.
 
2003-01-14 07:15:39 PM
Cop: Is that LSD you have there?
Me: Why yes it is.
Cop: You do realize that is illegal correct?
Me: Well actually, the question is did I MAKE it?
Cop: Did you.
Me: I did not.
Cop: In that case you may go. (pause) Wait, wait. Did you pay for that? For if you did, it surely supported the producers.
Me: No. The man I received this from mentioned that the first is always free.
Cop: Okay. Have a good day.
 
2003-01-14 07:16:03 PM
so so sad :(

say it aint so pete
 
2003-01-14 07:16:17 PM
I would just like to say that I do not believe that Pete Townshend is guilty of anything more than carrying a larger than normal portion of life's burdens.

The man was examining the demons that he believed shaped his life, and demons do not come into the light when you call upon them. You have to follow them back into the darkness.

This whole affair is beginning to sound like another St. Martin's Preschool affair. If we were truly serious about stopping child porn on the internet, we'd forget about what's legal and simply take axes to the servers that make this vile garbage available.
 
2003-01-14 07:16:21 PM
Kerouac writes: it was you who claimed that the motives weren't relevant, only that having paid for it was.

In a case in which a person paid for child pornography, no other motive is relevant. Whether he sought the material for good or ill, he encouraged child pornography by providing financial support.
 
2003-01-14 07:17:55 PM
Coelacanth can you swing a sack of door knobs?
 
2003-01-14 07:18:10 PM
Eraser8 -

if one pays $10 to access a child porn site, then produces a 300 page book to decry its evils, is it still encouraging it?


...I think you can see where I'm going here....
 
2003-01-14 07:19:13 PM
Ebawb

can I!?
 
2003-01-14 07:19:19 PM
Only if he donates all of the proceeds to victims of child abuse, Kerouac.

:)
 
2003-01-14 07:19:36 PM
Unsafe At Any Speed writes: Me: Well actually, the question is did I MAKE it?

That's not a relevant question. Nor is your analogy particularly relevant to the issue at hand.
 
2003-01-14 07:20:20 PM
Kerouac writes: if one pays $10 to access a child porn site, then produces a 300 page book to decry its evils, is it still encouraging it?

Yes.
 
2003-01-14 07:22:34 PM
And this is to shut Mashuren up....

One in four female children are molested by age 18.
One in six males are molested by age 18.
- 80-90% percent of the offenders are family members or close friends of the family.


-Orange County Child Abuse Prevention Center
 
2003-01-14 07:22:36 PM
WWJD?
 
2003-01-14 07:22:38 PM
Number2 wins the simpsons trivia game today.

But seriously, don't you all think that you shouldn't let the severity of the crime affect the level of reasonable doubt given to a suspect.
 
2003-01-14 07:22:42 PM
Ebawb-
"Does anyone else feel that we all let the severity of the crime affect the level of "reasonable doubt" that we give defendants?"

Actually, I think that works both ways. A jury may actually grant a suspect a lower standard of doubt if the penalty is more severe. On the other hand, in the media, there is no room for doubt unless it adds some sensationalism to the story.

In a case where there is a social stigma attached to the crime, I would think it is less likely for a jury to use "reasonable doubt" as a safety valve.
 
2003-01-14 07:23:25 PM
FlameGirl - agreed.

And since he IS one......
 
2003-01-14 07:23:42 PM
"I'd rather let a thousand guilty men go free than chase after them"

-chief wiggum :p
 
2003-01-14 07:24:12 PM
Mr_Crink that was my point.
 
2003-01-14 07:25:32 PM
I don't subscribe to the theory that if someone is a victim of the crime it absolves them of committing the same crime, Kerouac. Sorry. If he had mental demons from being sexually assaulted, he should have sought therapy.

This is totally hypothetical, incidentally. I have no clue if he's a sicko or not.
 
2003-01-14 07:26:06 PM
Coelacanth-

It's Mc Martin's preschool.
 
2003-01-14 07:26:27 PM
Mr_Crink writes: A jury may actually grant a suspect a lower standard of doubt if the penalty is more severe.

The standard is the same for all crimes regardless of severity. But, you have a point in that there's nothing that compels a jury to follow the law.
 
2003-01-14 07:26:37 PM
Eraser8 -

it's encouraging it the same way sting operations encourage prostitution.
 
2003-01-14 07:27:58 PM
The issue is not whether he is a wack job or was doing research. The use of a credit card shows intent under the law. The research may very well be valid but it does not absolve him of the crime that was committed.
 
2003-01-14 07:28:12 PM
I think I am going to go home and do some research for my book about binge drinking.

Later all.
 
2003-01-14 07:29:20 PM
how long do you go to prison for lookin at kiddie porn? what do you think the first thing the convict is gonna do when he gets back out?

we've gotta find a better way to punish sex offenders. I think that jail time should just be part of it, and that extensive therapy should be required. is it? i don't really know the law that well.
 
2003-01-14 07:29:20 PM
Kerouac writes: it's encouraging it the same way sting operations encourage prostitution.

No. In sting operations the bargain is not complete.
 
2003-01-14 07:30:18 PM
***Slightly off-topic threakdjack... (but it regards the legality of visiting certain websites, so it's sort of on-topic)***

I was just on the Guinness website, and noticed on the following disclaimer on the front page:

You must be resident in a country where entry to this site is permitted. You must not access this site if you are resident in any of the following countries:

France and the French overseas territories and departments/ France et Départments ou Territoires d'outre mer français French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, Mayotte, St Pierre and Miquelon, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Southern and Antarctic Territories, Wallis and Futuna Islands) Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Krygystan, Kuwait, Libya, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen.


Now, with some of these places, the reasons for not being permitted to visit such a site seem kind of obvious. However, I'm absolutely puzzled by some of the countries on the list... i.e. France, Denmark, Norway, Iceland just to name a few.

I was wondering if any of my fellow Farkers (being the intelligent and well-traveled bunch that you are...) might have some insight into the reasons behind this. (regarding either individual places or the list as a whole)

Curiousity really has the best of me here, so any info would truly be appreciated.
 
2003-01-14 07:30:26 PM
Flamegilr -

I don't subscribe to that theory either.

however, I look at intent before I judge.

and I see a whole lot of rational reasons for his presence at child porn sites (which, to date, total 2), and not many, if any, semblances of criminal intent.
 
2003-01-14 07:32:15 PM
Ebawb-

Thought so, just elaborating/clarifying/participating. And I was typing while you were too, so I was trailing you by a few posts. Just like old times, eh?
 
2003-01-14 07:32:40 PM
In sting operations the bargain is not complete.

sure it is. The crime isn't sex - it's the payment.
They bust them after the payment.

hence, complete.
 
2003-01-14 07:32:51 PM
Nice ad hominems, DisneyOnIce
 
2003-01-14 07:33:02 PM
Kerouac writes: however, I look at intent before I judge.

That's just a recipe for disaster. Motives are relevant when sentencing. But, they're not relevant to the question of whether a crime was committed.
 
2003-01-14 07:33:17 PM
Mr_Crink hehe, always entertaining.
 
2003-01-14 07:34:01 PM
Kerouac writes: hence, complete.

The bargain is incomplete because the police have no intention of honoring the transaction.
 
2003-01-14 07:36:41 PM
Personally, I really want to believe Townshend is innocent. After reading through his articulate and informative essay, which was written before Mozilla had popup-blocking I believe, it makes me feel a little more confident for his defense.

What I'm surprised about is how I haven't seen a post in this thread about the hypocrisy of society in this matter. Insofar as I can tell, you have a school of thought that seems to be shifting faster and faster into a belief that it's alright for children to dress as sexually provocative as they would like. For this, I submit the Abercrombie & Fitch "thong" fiasco (I'd like to see the marketing statistics that got this greenlighted in the first place), teenagers practically having sex at school dances without a problem while chaparoned, and pretty much any fashion geared toward girls that's come out in the last five years. This explosion of perceived promiscuity amongst teenagers all over the media (yes, the media - including MTV) is destined to bleed over into people of older age, as the fine line we still have between teenagers and adulthood is diluted even further. Do you honestly believe this doesn't help fuel a fire in some of these pedophilic consumers?

Let's go back to today, when these very same people that perpetuate this societal shift toward increased sexuality in teenagers are now demonizing a man, without evidence or conviction, of being a pedophile. As if it's ever that cut and dry, but given the way people are quick to play judge, jury, and executioner in this day and age, it doesn't surprise me a bit. It's a staunch hypocrisy, and a conviction by flawed perspective and lack of tangible evidence or knowledge of the situation-at-hand.

In short, am I damning society for producing an inevitable beast? Perhaps. There's a million different angles this subject could be brought on (like the constant equations to the drug war, et al.), but this was one I'm kind of surprised I didn't see.

Now, I'm not an old-fashioned person by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think kids should be confined to dancing apart from one another, just as much as I don't think that pigs can fly. I believe sexuality is something to have a more open dialogue about with teenagers and other adults alike, which is something this country has been lacking since, oh, about the year 1670. However, it'll be a cold day in Hell before I let my child, regardless of age of consent, act even close to as promiscuous as half the teenagers I see on any given day at a mall, as long as he/she is living in my house. This isn't even the same world it was ten years ago, when I was in high school.

Huracan said, "To the best of my knowledge it is illegal to set up a "teen" site which depitcs a 40 year old+ woman parading around sexually while being presented as though they were under 18."

Actually, they just struck that down in the Supreme Court not even six months ago. Simulation of an underage is still legal in the United States, as is CGI, but for however long I couldn't tell you, because they're supposedly going to pursue a ban again rather shortly. Which is why Hustler's "Barely Legal" magazine continues to be one of the hottest sellers in the good old U.S. of A., and nobody's shutting down Hentai sites depicting underagers yet.

And for the person that posted that a 16 year-old sending her 16 year-old boyfriend a nude picture could be arrested, well, I would believe that to be false, given that both are the age of consent. At least here in GA, where they today overturned the 170 year-old law forbidding non-married people to have sex. (Thank God, now I can have sex with my fiancee! *snicker*) It was overturned by a case involving a 16 year-old couple caught having sex in the girl's house, and deemed consentual between both parties.
 
2003-01-14 07:37:10 PM
Technicolor-misfit

I think it has something to do with soccer.

Actually I have no idea. Sorry.
 
2003-01-14 07:38:42 PM
Vd

right on
 
2003-01-14 07:39:58 PM
This is the most useless argument.

It all boils down to this: Child pornography is wrong. If Townshend wanted to research it, then he should let everyone know (by posting it on his website, or making a press release) that he was researching it. He doesn't have anything to hide right? If he doesn't do that (and he didn't) then he should expect to pay the price for researching child pornography in secret.

END OF STORY
 
2003-01-14 07:41:26 PM
I think this goes far beyond Townshend. Agree or disagree?
 
2003-01-14 07:41:45 PM
He said he was doing research for his autobiography and that he thinks he might have been molested when he was a kid, but doesn't quite remember.

I submit that the title for his autobiography might be, "Who Touched Me.(?)"

Voting en... oh damn.
 
2003-01-14 07:41:45 PM
Vanadium agreed.

Ever read "Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climates" by Tom Robbins?
 
2003-01-14 07:42:57 PM
Negative. I'll have to check it out.

Our society is so ass-backwards in terms of its sexuality that this was bound to happen.
 
2003-01-14 07:45:15 PM
I believe I already said it.......... END OF STORY

NO MORE POSTS!
 
2003-01-14 07:45:18 PM
Dandamanfl

made my day
 
2003-01-14 07:47:36 PM
Motives are relevant when sentencing. But, they're not relevant to the question of whether a crime was committed

Completely wrong. Research the legal concept of "criminal mind".

Intent is a very large part of conviction.

and the crime is solicitation of prostitution. Once the solicitation has occurred, the act is complete. It has nothing to do with a transaction or what happens afterwards.

Is selling cocaine illegal? Is it legal to sell it if you plan to go get your cocaine back later?

That's exactly what a crack bust does. A physical sale and handover of the drugs.
 
2003-01-14 07:49:22 PM
ToAd -

well, let's see.

He was busted this weekend.

A year ago, he posted on his web site that he was researching this stuff.

So, essentially, he did what you wanted.

Happy?
 
2003-01-14 07:50:02 PM
I can honestly say, as a guy who has cruised plenty of pornon the internet, that I have NEVER seen a site, pop-up or otherwise, that was advertising hard-core child porn. I have seen a few "barely 18" sort of advertisements, but the idea that Pete or anyone else accidently hit a bunch of child porn doesn't wash with me. I've never even seen one of the types of pictures Pete is describing, and don't believe very
many people who weren't looking would find them, either.
And, of course, much of the discussion on this subject has been crap, because many of you are debating whether he can be believed that he was just doing research. Regardless: He intentionally entered a child pornography site and got caught doing it. He admitted to doing it. Guilt is there, intent is there, end of story.
There, now that I cleared this up, we can all move on to something else. :)
 
2003-01-14 07:50:11 PM
Damn famous people and their little boy pr0n fetishes.

How does looking at child porn constitute research?

"Oh, about those nekkid kids... I was... um... doing research... for a ... screenpl-... err... I mean a book I am writing... that's it... a book... because I was... in child po-...err -- abused as a child."

Does one need to actually view child porn to write a book on being abused? Wouldn't the actual abuse be sufficient? I have never been abused, so I really don't know; I can only assume that is the way it works.

Number 2:
I think that kiddie pr0n criminals get the same welcome from the other inmates that granny-beaters get.
 
2003-01-14 07:51:50 PM
I agree with Kerouac. Intent is very important. What's the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter.
 
2003-01-14 07:52:17 PM
Kerouac writes: Completely wrong. Research the legal concept of "criminal mind".

I don't need to research it. I already know what it is. And, you've completely missed the point. Intent (criminally speaking) has nothing to do with the purpose for which a crime was committed. Intent is merely the state of mind wherein the person understands and desires the consequences of his act. WHY he acted is totally irrelevant. It is not a part of the corpus delecti of any crime.

Once the solicitation has occurred, the act is complete.

The criminal action is complete; but, the bargain is not. There was no exchange of consideration.
 
2003-01-14 07:52:51 PM
Pete makes a good point, though: there are a lot of people out there that want it and they will get it eventually. So, like he suggests in a coy manner, we should all move towards a police-state where you are assumed guilty until innocent and are monitored every second of your life.

Atleast that's what I picked up from his essay. Still, 20,000 people to that one site... I think it's time to scrap humanity and start over on the moon.
 
2003-01-14 07:53:01 PM
Cop: Is that LSD you have there?
Me: Why yes it is.
Cop: You do realize that is illegal correct?
Me: Well actually, the question is did I MAKE it?
Cop: Did you.
Me: I did not.
Cop: In that case you may go. (pause) Wait, wait. Did you pay for that? For if you did, it surely supported the producers.
Me: No. The man I received this from mentioned that the first is always free.
Cop: Okay. Have a good day.


all i gotta say is, if a popup secretely downloaded lsd onto my hard drve.....
 
2003-01-14 07:54:35 PM
there's no way pete townsend wrote that essay. a lawyer wrote that. have you seen him interviewed? it's not the same voice. it's like reading a well written doctoral thesis on microbiology penned by henry rollins.
 
2003-01-14 07:55:12 PM
It's one thing to look at picutres, but paying is a whole diffrent matter...
 
2003-01-14 07:55:45 PM
Here's what I don't get... why is this stuff so prominent in Russia? Don't the police make any effort to bust those responsible for this content?
With all the hackers and computer virus designers out there, it seems like it would be easy enough for the police to locate these sites, delete the content, and damage the servers holding them. You just have to hire the right people for the job. I imagine, though, that this line of work would be akin to spending all day killing animals in a slaughterhouse... the risk of being either traumatized or desensitized to the content would be extremely high.
Finally, I think the "Hulk Smash!" method of dealing with pedophiles is counterproductive. Yes, they deserve punishment, but the idea that you can scare them straight by beating them is idiotic. After twenty years of being attacked and raped in prison, what's the first thing that's going to be on their minds when they get out? Revenge. Congratulations, you've just made a bad situation worse.
People often describe pedophiles as sick. What if that's the point... they're mentally ill and in need of psychiatric care? You can hate them if you want, but wouldn't it be better if these people were treated BEFORE they started harming kids?

JR
 
2003-01-14 07:57:06 PM
Ebawb - Ever read "Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climates" by Tom Robbins?

excellent book...
 
2003-01-14 07:58:01 PM
godddamit. HE'S A FREAK! LOCK HIM UP!
 
2003-01-14 07:59:55 PM
All you Mozilla fans, remember that Mozilla was still in beta when this paper was written, and beta software isn't usually appealing to the general public. Proxomitron was available at the time though, so Townshend should've used it instead.
 
2003-01-14 08:00:34 PM
On a bit of a different tack -

My mother is an alcoholic. She tried to kill herself once, drunk.

When I saw "Leaving Las Vegas", I saw an entirely different movie than most people did.

so, using more than a knee-jerk reaction, i can completely see what would impel a survivor of child abuse to look up what happens to children in this day and age.



ps- the exchange of consideration claim goes completely out the window when you look at a crack bust.
 
2003-01-14 08:00:39 PM
Ebawb writes: What's the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter.

No. Kerouac is totally wrong on this one. As I noted above, legal intent is not a determination of WHY a person acted. It is merely the determination that the person understood the consequences of his action.

Let's look at your example to further illustrate the point. Murder and manslaughter are both homicides -- but, they're different offenses. Is it ever necessary in a murder trial to find a motive? No. But, it is important to know the state of mind of the offender. That is, for a murder charge to stick, he had to have acted with malice aforethought, which is a cruelty or recklessness of consequence. But, to find malice aforethought, we don't need to know the specific motive.

Motives, as I already stated, are relevant in sentencing. And, in the state's sentencing statutes you find the guidelines that bring aggravating and mitigating circumstances into play.
 
2003-01-14 08:02:47 PM
Vanadium hits the truth. Even if Townshend is a pedophile, which I hope he's not, it would mean he's a sick man, someone who needs to have his disease treated, not punished.

There are plenty of people out there who are secret pedophiles with disgusting urges they keep to themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if my middle school P.E. teacher, who used to perform spot jock strap inspections, has a hard drive full of the stuff. Still, an openness to give these people psychological help is probably a better way to go than locking them up.
 
2003-01-14 08:03:11 PM
Eraser8 I think you dropped something on my toe.
 
2003-01-14 08:04:34 PM
Kerouac writes: i can completely see what would impel a survivor of child abuse to look up what happens to children in this day and age.

I'm sure it will come up in the sentencing hearing. That's where it's relevant.

the exchange of consideration claim goes completely out the window when you look at a crack bust.

You're missing the point again. The crime and the bargain are separate. Since consideration was not mutual, the bargain was not complete. And, that's the difference between police sting operations and Mr. Townshend's conduct. Mr. Townshend completed his trade.
 
2003-01-14 08:04:42 PM
maynard james keenan's statement about stinkfist ...

'if you think i'd write a song about anal fisting, well, that's just where you are, i suppose.'

farking jackasses.
 
2003-01-14 08:05:25 PM
Besides, the whole issue of the age of consent is so Cut and dry.

In that, even in the good old US of A, different states have different laws on the matter. Most states seem to have a 16-18 range, but there are a few (south carolina, Iowa, colorado) that have lower numbers.

But that's nothing compared to other countries. Such as Argentina, Chile, Columbia, Italy, Korea, Nigeria, Russia (hey), Spain, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Zimbabwe and any number of other countries with an age of consent of 16 or below.

Including a country called Vojvodina that I've never friggin heard of.

Proves that the human animal has no clue what's going on. And everyone wants to think that their own morality is the end all be all truth when what we really have is an arbitrary line.

Certainly, there is no argument that 10 is too young. But by following the letter of the law (using California as an example) 17 years and 364 days is also too young.

And then get into the states that have different ages of consent for males and females, and for different sex acts (double/treble/quadruple standards?) you realize just how screwed the entire system is.
 
2003-01-14 08:06:10 PM
Ebawb writes: I think you dropped something on my toe.

Sorry. I guess. By the way, I have no idea what you mean.
 
2003-01-14 08:06:21 PM
...well do you think that (some obscure example) should be punished by (some other crap) because I know (some other bullshiat) and it states very cleary that (enough already)...SO THERE, WHO'S WITH ME! (no not The Who)
 
2003-01-14 08:07:44 PM
01-14-03 07:34:01 PM Eraser8
The bargain is incomplete because the police have no intention of honoring the transaction.


They dont? DOH! And i was looking forward to meeting a hot policewoman during a sting operation.

/sarcasm for fun
 
2003-01-14 08:10:58 PM
Eraser8 -

just to clarify:

Mens Rea means that you hade 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.
 
2003-01-14 08:11:22 PM
Lordargent

Check out what I just saw when I went to that age of consent link:



Hint: Look at the banners.
 
2003-01-14 08:11:36 PM
Sparehair: People write differently than they speak, sometimes. My patterns of speech are very different from my style of writing, especially something written which is looked over with a fine-tooth comb. Just because someone doesn't speak eloquently doesn't mean his writing should mirror his speech. Thinking otherwise is simply silly. End of story.

And as far as this whole rockstar-meets-kiddie porn thing goes, I really don't care.. and not because I'm cruel and heartless. I'm just sick of turning on the television and listening to the wonderful people on the news (especially Fox News; go figure) babble about how awful this is, and it's touching that Townshend's friends are standing by his side and being supportive.

Stop blaming the consumers. It doesn't work with drugs (I doubt many of you Farkers would like to be locked up for possession, and don't say you don't do it, you liars!), so what gives you the idea that it would work with child porn?

If you want to stop something you feel is a problem, you nip it in the bud. You stop it before it starts. You find the manufacturers and you stop it. If you continue to stop the manufacturing of child porn, then it will become increasingly difficult to find.

Note that the site which Townshend was using came from Texas. Not Russia, which has been mentioned in this thread more times than I can count, but good ol' Texas. So let's shut it down, imprison the creators (you know, the abusers?) and that's that.

I don't believe there's a surefire way to stop child porn from existing. I wish there were, but there simply isn't. There will always be a sick fark who wants to pose his little kids, or his neighbours' kids, in provocative positions. I suppose the best we can do is shut the hell up about this already (I've done my share in beating the dead horse) and try to prevent our children from finding this.

So leave Townshend alone, okay? I believe his motives were pure, and I can't possibly believe anyone who says otherwise. Errors in judgment do occur.

If anyone has anything further to say to me, e-mail me at mil­es_a­par­t[nospam-﹫-backwards]onu­j*c­om. Thank you, and goodnight.
 
2003-01-14 08:14:17 PM
Was he drinking NyQuil when he was giving out his CC#? Grounds for dismissal...
ps kiddi porn of any type is not tolerated by me and should not be tolerated by anyone for anyreason. Its just plain wrong. If he's guilty then fry him. If anyone molests kids fry them as well. Fry the creators, the distributers and anyone else who repeatedly takes part as a consumer. No two ways about it. Once everyone realizes the gravity of the consequences I doubt you will 'accidently' run across any on the web.
Also a side comment....does anyones else think its strange that the was in texas? hmmm so thats what W was up to on his vacation. j/k
 
2003-01-14 08:15:51 PM
Vanadium: Check out what I just saw when I went to that age of consent link:

Here's what I got.
 
2003-01-14 08:18:17 PM
I see someone's confusing criminal law and contract law.

The entire concept of consideration is nullified when the contract involves a criminal act.


sorry. Try again.
 
2003-01-14 08:19:24 PM
Kerouac writes: Mens Rea means that you hade to know or should have known that you were commiting a crime

Thanks, but I know what mens rea is. And, your definition is a little off. You don't need to know that you were breaking the law. It is enought that you (as I noted earlier) understand and desire the consequences of your act. It is not generally a valid defense to claim that you were unaware that your action was unlawful. If, for example, you knowlingly download child porn, it won't do you any good to argue ignorance of the forbidding statute. Mens rea is present even if you believed you were acting innocently.
 
2003-01-14 08:22:18 PM
"If he's guilty then fry him. If anyone molests kids fry them as well. Fry the creators, the distributers and anyone else who repeatedly takes part as a consumer."

This is exactly what I'm talking about.
"Blah, must not understand problem! Must not solve problem rationally! Must have REVENGE! Hulk SMASH!!!"

JR
 
2003-01-14 08:25:34 PM
actually, it's your definition that's off.

Mens Rea means Guilty Mind.

It does not mean you had to intend what you were doing.

It means you had to have had some form of criminal intent.

maybe this will help:
mens rea
['menz-'re-e, -'ra-]

pl: mentes reae ['men-'tez-'re-'e, 'men-'tas-'ra-'i]


New Latin, literally, guilty mind

: a culpable mental state

esp
: one involving intent or knowledge and forming an element of a criminal offense
Example: murder contains a mens rea element
(compare actus reus)
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.


yes, you need to know that you were breaking the law - barring the obvious, that ignorance is not a defense.

Essentially, the law must be common enough that you would have known it was illegal.
 
2003-01-14 08:25:45 PM
Kerouac writes: The entire concept of consideration is nullified when the contract involves a criminal act.

Wow. You're still missing a very elementary point. We're not talking about whether an illegal transaction can ever be the subject of an enforceable contract. Townshend not only offered money to purchase porn, he received the porn in consideration for his payment. The bargain was complete. This is in stark comparison to a sting in which nothing actually passes from the police to the offender.
 
Ant
2003-01-14 08:27:06 PM
Interesting thing to consider:

If the webmaster of a meb site you visit put an image on one of their pages, but made it so you were unable to see it, you would end up having that pic in your browser's cache. What's to stop some sick individual from placing a child porn image on a page or in an email, setting it's height and width attributes to "1", then reporting all the visitors to his site as pedophiles?
 
2003-01-14 08:27:58 PM
One other issue is that society likes to confuse hebephilia with paedophilia.

hebephilia is being strongly attracted to post-pubescent girls or boys (~14-18).

paedophilia is being strongly attracted to pre-pubescent girls or boys (under ~11).

Paedophilia is a sickness -- in the sense that it is a deviation from what is commonly felt in society or anything that is even biologically sensible.

hebephilia is completely normal. if any guy says he doesn't find 17 year old girls somewhat attractive (to one degree or another) he is lying. Biologically it makes more sense than having sex with a woman who is 30 and already in declining fertility. As one of my OB/GYN friends said one, a 16 year old girl can practically get pregnant by being in the same ROOM as a horny guy. Once girls go through puberty, they are incredibly attractive on a strictly instinctual level to most men of any society. Socially, though, its less acceptable because we attach more emotional significance on marriage in the west than we used to -- if it was still a matter of breeding help for the farm, we wouldn't even bother letting women into college. But since we expect to spend a lifetime together and have long conversations, it isn't appropriate for a 30-year old and a 16-year old to get married/have sex. Up until the last 50 years or so, it was perfectly acceptable for a 16-year old girl to be courted by a man twice her age.
 
2003-01-14 08:28:20 PM
Is anyone still reading down her at the bottom of this page?

Has any one of you had to give a credit card number to a free site to prove you are 18? Did you ever get charged anything on you statement? Does that mean you intentionally paid the site owners/pornographers/abusers? Did Pete Townshend?

Has Pete Townshend been tried and convicted by the media spinning public opinion?
 
2003-01-14 08:29:24 PM
So nice to see that FARK hasn't lost it's ability to turn almost any thread, no matter how diverse, into a flame war generally consisting of irrelevant personal attacks on other posters.....
 
2003-01-14 08:30:49 PM
I am sorry Mashuren - that was a nasty and cheap shot, and I would have deleted it if FARK had that option. On the other hand, I was angered and insulted by your snotty response to my Boobiesing.
 
2003-01-14 08:31:08 PM
01-14-03 07:06:59 PM Eraser8
"TommyymmoT writes: The only one who is CLEARLY NOT INNOCENT is the website. It is the worst kind of selective prosecution.

And, how do you propose for Britain to prosecute a crime that was committed in Texas?"

I propose that Texas prosecute the crime. Why is this website allowed to keep operating? Has any one considered the possibility that a government agency is operating (or at least condoning) it? How is it that the cops are catching the peds in an ongoing investigation? Meaning, the cops are at the very least, allowing the dissemination of kiddy porn, so(as with any sting) that they can create a crime that may not have taken place without their "help"
 
2003-01-14 08:31:15 PM
Ant: or posting it to a fark thread, in an inconspicuous location, like the end of a sentance
 
2003-01-14 08:32:02 PM
01-14-03 08:27:06 PM Ant
Interesting thing to consider:

If the webmaster of a meb site you visit put an image on one of their pages, but made it so you were unable to see it, you would end up having that pic in your browser's cache. What's to stop some sick individual from placing a child porn image on a page or in an email, setting it's height and width attributes to "1", then reporting all the visitors to his site as pedophiles?


A part from the fact that there is no profit to be made? And that by reporting them, you would expose yourself as your URL would inside the cache of the system reported? And that when the ploy would be exposed that you would expose yourself to civil court damages to the reputation of the people you reported?
It seems like a really REALLY bad idea.
 
2003-01-14 08:32:18 PM
So in France, 15 year olds are free to get freaky, ditto for Denmark. In Norway, 16 year olds can "slip and slide" on snow-covered peaks, and in Iceland 14 year olds are fair game...


But, nobody can look at the Guinness website?
 
2003-01-14 08:32:59 PM
DisneyOnIce

Well, I'm sorry that I didn't make it more clear that it was a joke. Next time I'll add a little joking emoticon so the confusion won't happen again

 
2003-01-14 08:34:48 PM
I was angered and insulted by your snotty response to my Boobiesing.

All hail the FARK Filter :-)
 
2003-01-14 08:35:11 PM
Townshend not only offered money to purchase porn, he received the porn in consideration for his payment. The bargain was complete. This is in stark comparison to a sting in which nothing actually passes from the police to the offender.

Wow. Wrong twice in three sentences.

First of all, the second illegal porn enters the equation, the concept of consideration goes out the window. It's a moot point. Therefore, your second sentence is irrelevant.

Secondly, in a drug bust, the money goes from the offender to the police.

The police do, in fact, give the drugs to the offender.

It is only after has taken possession of the drugs that he is arrested.

After all, it isn't illegal to give cops money, is it?


I am impressed by your knowledge of contract law. Too bad it doesn't apply here.
 
2003-01-14 08:35:52 PM
01-14-03 08:28:35 PM DisneyOnIce
A RCMP "sting operation"? You mean like that time when Dudley Do-Right tied all those girls to the railroad tracks in an effort to catch Snidely Whiplash?


No dude, a RCMP operation like the one we are talking about. This operation is worldwide, involving most national law enforcement agencies. They catched a few pedophiles over here too.
 
2003-01-14 08:36:44 PM
Technicolor-misfit: But, nobody can look at the Guinness website?

because they're not old enough to drink :P Think of the 18/21 split in the US.

BTW MousePotato raises an interesting point above.
 
2003-01-14 08:36:53 PM
TommyymmoT - I propose that Texas prosecute the crime. Why is this website allowed to keep operating? Has any one considered the possibility that a government agency is operating (or at least condoning) it? How is it that the cops are catching the peds in an ongoing investigation? Meaning, the cops are at the very least, allowing the dissemination of kiddy porn, so(as with any sting) that they can create a crime that may not have taken place without their "help"

In earlier reports, it said that the website operators had already been busted. That's how they got R.T.'s name in the first place. The authorities (postal inspectors, I believe) distributed the names of subscribers to their local constabularies.
 
2003-01-14 08:40:57 PM
Im obnly going to say it once:

I have no porn on my computer.

/boobies
 
2003-01-14 08:41:51 PM
 
2003-01-14 08:44:11 PM
I don't know if he's just a naive hippie or a sick fark.
Either way he does sound as if he's just a bit simple minded.

But if you're going to arrest him, arrest these people first:
Lindsey's Mom
a href="http://www.lilamber.com/">Amanda's Mom
(Not kiddie porn links but somehow creepy enough to want to call some child services department..)

From the 'facts' we have at this point?
I can't say either way but if I had small children I probably wouldn't leave them alone with him.
But on the bright side, this won't damage his rep in Europe or Asia. (As proven by Michael Jackson's continued fame in both those regions.)
 
2003-01-14 08:45:19 PM
Kerouac writes: Mens Rea means Guilty Mind.

I am aware of that. But, you've still got it wrong. There is a presumption that people know the law. Mistakes of law -- in which you understand what you're doing but do not understand the legal consequences -- is not a valid defense in most criminal prosecutions.

First of all, the second illegal porn enters the equation, the concept of consideration goes out the window.

No, it doesn't. The money that passed from Townshend to the website was consideration. It doesn't matter that the subject matter was improper.

Secondly, in a drug bust, the money goes from the offender to the police.

If the offender is immediately placed under arrest, he cannot be said to have taken possession of the drugs -- because he was, in effect, already under the parole of the officers.
 
2003-01-14 08:48:18 PM
...poor poor editing skills...

*goes red in the face*
 
2003-01-14 08:48:50 PM
I actually unintentional saw some child pornography, though it wasn't from a search engine. It was actually in a chat room for pre-teens/teenagers that allowed image posting, and someone posted a picture of a naked girl (though it didn't show her genitals). So I can believe that someone might accidently find child pornography...however what Townshend did was not smart. Despite his intentions or if he contributed to the demand for child porn, what he did was illegal (well, I assume, I'm not exactly sure what the law in Britain says). I mean, it is not an issue of whether or not he was aroused or disgusted by what he saw, but rather that he was paying for it.
 
2003-01-14 08:50:28 PM
Lordargent - because they're not old enough to drink :P Think of the 18/21 split in the US.

Nope, it's not that... Nobody can. The site is prohibited. My guess would be that it has something to do with alcohol-related advertising, but I don't know.

It could possibly even be something pertaining to trade restrictions or something.
 
2003-01-14 08:57:28 PM
"cant explain" it away like that..
 
2003-01-14 08:57:43 PM
ArugulaZ- You forgot to put the rest of my comment after what you copied from my post...I imagine you read the rest so to be fair you forgot to include the rest of the paragraph in your dislike of my comment,"No two ways about it. Once everyone realizes the gravity of the consequences I doubt you will 'accidently' run across any on the web."
no offence intended, just a little out of context...
 
2003-01-14 09:00:57 PM
Kerouac, I decided to look up a few examples of what I meant by mistakes of law not being valid criminal defenses:

CODE OF ORDINANCES: Shreveport, LA

Sec. 50-41. Mistake of law.

Ignorance of the provisions of this article or of any criminal statute is not a defense to any criminal prosecution. However, mistake of law which results in the lack of an intention that consequences which are criminal shall follow is a defense to a criminal prosecution under the following circumstances:

(1) Where the offender reasonably relied on a legislative enactment of the state legislature or the governing authority of the city repealing an existing criminal provision, or in otherwise purporting to make the offender's conduct lawful; or

(2) Where the offender reasonably relied on a final judgment of a competent court of last resort that a provision making the conduct in question criminal was unconstitutional.


Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 199 (1991) (interesting case which provided an exception to the general understanding of intent -- but, continues to assert the propriety of the traditional sense in the prosecution of most crimes)

The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system...

Thus, the term "willfully" in criminal law generally refers to consciousness of the act but not to consciousness that the act is unlawful...


American Law Institute, Model Penal Code § 2.02(8)

[T]he word `willful' . . . means no more than that the person charged with the duty knows what he is doing, not that he must suppose that he is breaking the law.

Mr. Justice Brennan

If the ancient maxim that `ignorance of the law is no excuse' has any residual validity, it indicates that the ordinary intent requirement - mens rea - of the criminal law does not require knowledge that an act is illegal, wrong, or blameworthy
 
2003-01-14 09:04:02 PM
I hate to say it this way, because i know the topic much better, but:

eraser8 - watch COPS.

Watch a drug sting.

One cop goes, either buys or sells the stuff, and leaves. Other cops then converge on the suspect. At no point during the transaction is the suspect under parole of the police. He is under surveillance.


as for consideration, I quote:
"Legality

Another requirement of a valid contract is that its material provisions be legal. In the context of artists' contracts, legality of provisions normally is not a major issue. An agreement for the consideration to be paid in the form of illegal drugs would be an example of an illegal material provision. my note - so would child pornography

Thus, any contracts containing material provisions that are not legal, such as provisions requiring criminal acts, the commission of a "tort" (a breach of civil law such as defamation, breach of a copyright or license, misrepresentation or trespass), or those in breach of public policy, will be ruled to be illegal and/or unenforceable. Illegality, of course, is determined by statutes."

-McCandlish & Lillard, P.C.
 
2003-01-14 09:05:52 PM
Uh, what about British law? Since this is in Britain.
 
2003-01-14 09:05:54 PM
does anybody know of some good anagrams for "Pete Townshend"? I am looking to harass a friend who is a major Who fan. All I can come up with so far is:
He wed Penn's Tot
Went do Stephen
He Spend New Tot
Send Nephew Tot
Tends to Nephew
I guess the kids arent all right
 
2003-01-14 09:09:16 PM
Ima4nic8or: does anybody know of some good anagrams for "Pete Townshend"?

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=Pete+Townshend
 
2003-01-14 09:11:56 PM

English Boy by Pete Townshend (excerpt)

And I don't know where I am now
Or where I'm gonna go
I just keep going round and round on the circle line
Like some demented kind a cummuta
Trying to avoid paying for my ticket
I'm a lost soul
I read about myself in the newspapers
I'm a pig
I'm a thug
I've got nowhere to go but down


(cue eerie foreshadowing music)

 
2003-01-14 09:12:00 PM
thanks Lordargent
 
2003-01-14 09:13:31 PM
The fact that Pete Townshend says you have to be "terminally uncurious" not to want to view more child porno is a rather telling admission.

If you purchase child porno you're simply creating a market for it. Plain and simple, you are guilty.
 
2003-01-14 09:14:13 PM
Lordargent

DEEP NE NTH SWOT

..at first thought i thought it said "Knee deep in shiat"

yeah, i know, i can't read.
 
2003-01-14 09:15:05 PM
Kerouac writes: At no point during the transaction is the suspect under parole of the police.

He is under effective parole -- which is different from arrest.

as for consideration, I quote

Your citation is not responsive to my position. I clearly stated that a bargain of improper subject matter is not legally enforceable. Let's take a closer look at one particular sentence:

An agreement for the consideration to be paid in the form of illegal drugs would be an example of an illegal material provision.

The fact that the form of the consideration nullifies the transaction does not change the fact that the consideration remains consideration.
 
2003-01-14 09:18:49 PM
Other then to say, childporn gets a lot of people "all hot and bothered", I have nothing to say.
 
2003-01-14 09:19:43 PM
Kotton

for good reason, i would say.
 
2003-01-14 09:21:01 PM
As for the topic of the real discussion, i can only assume that Eraser and Kerouac are either:

- Law students
- Attorneys
- Law enthusiasts, is there such a thing?
- Guys that should make a career in law?
 
2003-01-14 09:30:25 PM
It's a legal matter, baby.
A legal matter from now on.

Anyone else curious as to what Moonie would have said about all this?
 
2003-01-14 09:31:41 PM
Hearing all of this, "I was just doing it for research." blah blah blah.. and even tho he says he hates it but yet paying access for Credit Card. It just about reminds me of Bush's Anti Drug Ad's saying buying drugs = helping terrorists.

"I helped kill a judge."
"I helped hijackers fly 2 planes into the world trade center."
"I helped.. etc etc"

we can now have Pete Townshend's make adds and say,
"Because of my research, I just helped a child mosleter rape another child." and
"With research, I just helped make another child porn site."
 
2003-01-14 09:33:29 PM
His "writing" is a self defence for looking at child porn. By his own writing he sounds guilty to me.
 
2003-01-14 09:40:30 PM
Lonestar - none of the above. I'm worse, someone who looks stuff up, instead of reyling on knowledge. I've learned that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

i'm guessing eraser8 is a contract lawyer, because he keeps messing up his terms.

Eraser8 - are you kidding me?

exchanging child porn for cash is somehow a legal transaction, but exchanging drugs for cash isn't?



because there's no legal differentiation between when a transaction is completed.

Look at any drug conviction - it dispels your entire argument. The suspect has completed the transaction. That's what the crime is.
 
2003-01-14 09:50:28 PM
By C.C?.

I wonder which one he used.

Visa?
Anywhere Russia!, Anytime All Day!, Any Way Doggie Style!.
Visa. How the world plays. with little naked girls and boys.

Mastercard?
there are some things money can't buy nope, child porn isn't one of these things, now fork over the money!
for everything else there's MasterCard. as long as you call it research

Discover?
It pays to Discover child porn!!
 
2003-01-14 09:50:56 PM
I'm a huge Who fan, but I don't care why he did it. You can't murder anyone for research either.

Is prison the way to punish sex offenders - simply look at the repeat rate. We need alternatives. I'd like to try hard labor.
 
2003-01-14 09:51:27 PM
Kerouac writes: exchanging child porn for cash is somehow a legal transaction, but exchanging drugs for cash isn't?

What are you talking about? I never said that.

because there's no legal differentiation between when a transaction is completed.

You still don't get it. A crime can occur in the mere solicitation of a bargain. But, that does not describe the bargain itself.
 
2003-01-14 09:51:42 PM
when i was 14 i used to search for images of nekkid 15-16 year old girls...was that illegal?
 
2003-01-14 09:54:47 PM
I completely get it.

In a sting, ther bargain (as you insist on using, although it's a contract term, not a criminal one) is still completed. The undercover officer and the suspect complete the bargain - cash for drugs. That is the bargain.


You seem to believe there's some kind of legal difference between a sting and a simple arrest. There isn't - you just have more solid evidence.

If you'd like to debate legal theories, get your legal systems right - because you've introduced about 5 different contract law items that simnply have no place in criminal law.
 
2003-01-14 09:56:57 PM
01-14-03 09:51:42 PM Spoonman

no not really natural curiosity when your talking about this shiat UGH im still so disgusted i could puke
 
2003-01-14 10:01:20 PM
01-14-03 09:55:06 PM Lordargent
Lonestar

sorry, couldn't resist


For what? For that definition? No man, I dont pretend like Im a english teacher. I also come from a French-canadien background and that makes me less than perfect in english.
Making english mistakes is normal for me... hey, i learned your language as a second language.
 
2003-01-14 10:02:14 PM
Anyone else curious as to what Moonie would have said about all this?</i?


"Get me out of this coffin and into a vodka martini!"
would be my guess...

The Ox would have nodded to Moonie's comment, too
 
2003-01-14 10:02:34 PM
Well, I guess "We WILL get fooled again".
 
2003-01-14 10:05:21 PM
To the people who think that the age at which someone is considered an adult is arbitrary:

It is true that different people mature at different rates. It is also true that many people may have essentially attained physical maturity by age 16, however, I do not believe many people reach mental maturity by this age.

Even more important is the fact that having "open season" on high school students, so to speak, is antithetical to the nature of our social institutions (in this case, our educational institutions). Optimistically speaking, the purpose of these institutions is to help young adults become reasonably well-adjusted productive members of our society. Even if this is a gross overstatement of the purpose and goals of this system, I still believe that graduation from such mandatory schooling really marks an entry into the adult world. From a world where you have very few choices and most of your days have been mapped out for you to potential freedom afforded all adult individuals...
 
2003-01-14 10:08:51 PM
protest sign: Free Who?
 
2003-01-14 10:09:55 PM
Wouldn't worry about the grammar police Lonestar. 50% of the people I work with, and about an equal number of my friends are French Canadian with English as a second language. I don't make fun of them for pronunciation as I respect them too much for the job they've done learning a very difficult language. And people who think French Canadians are idiots are clearly very shallow, and have not met many (or any for that matter).
 
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?
 
2003-01-15 12:34:09 AM
Next class we will discuss property law. My favorite ADVERSE POSSESSION.

Bring a lunch. We will all go on a field trip and live like squatters!

Yay!

If only law school had field trips!
 
2003-01-15 12:37:43 AM
Zaago writes: But if he knows the consequences of his actions, then he knows he is committing a crime

Well, not necessarily. If you shoot me in the head, assuming you had your wits about you, you ought to recognize that my death is likely to be the result. Do you need to know that there was a statute outlawing murder to be prosecuted? Of course not. I know that's an extreme example. As Justice Brennan wrote (and, as I have cited twice in the thread already) the ordinary intent requirement - mens rea - of the criminal law does not require knowledge that an act is illegal, wrong, or blameworthy.

If he acts deliberately but cannot forsee that the end result will be criminal is that not negligence or reclessness?

Yes.
 
2003-01-15 12:41:58 AM
And that, my friends, is why Land'O'Lakes is everyone's favorite brand for cheese products.

/what?
 
2003-01-15 12:52:45 AM
right on, brother!
 
2003-01-15 01:01:46 AM
Eraser: Shooting you in the head is not the issue.

WHY I shot you is the issue.

I would argue that lack of knowledge of the legality, wrongness or blameworthiness of an act is precisely what removes mens rea.

Two persons commit identical acts. One appreciates the wrongness of the act and the other does not. Those two are certainly viewed differently.

Courts sometimes consider the ability of the person charged to understand the wrongness of his crime.

Contrast:

I shoot you in the head knowing and intending that it will kill you and knowing that killing is wrong.

I shoot you in the head knowing and intending it will kill you but I did so because you told me to do it.
 
2003-01-15 01:05:28 AM
I can't believe anyone can use the web for very long at all without stumbling across really nasty porn and/or other truly disturbing imagery. I've never seen 2 year old porn, but the list of things I'd like to forget I've seen is pretty long and scary. From bestiality to scat to snuff to america's funniest home videos, the horror is vast. And in the immortal words of Stan Marsh, what the fark is wrong with German people?

all lame humor aside, there are a couple videos that come to mind. I'm a fan of funny commercials, so I download them fairly often. One vid claiming to be a classic funny commercial was actually footage of some newscaster shooting himself in the face back in the 50s or somewhere thereabouts. Guy decided to off himself on air and took everyone by surprise. This was unexpected and rather unpleasant, but when you're looking for stuff online you expect to find things that aren't what they say.

There is one video that haunts me, though. It also claimed to be a funny commercial, or maybe it claimed to be one of those saucy jeans commercials we don't get in the US, I don't remember for sure. In reality it was footage of a man and a little girl walking quickly on a train .. station, pad, whatever they call it. The man suddenly stops, but the girl was very small and was nearly running to keep up with him and when he stopped she continued on the equivalence of two of his long strides. She then was hit by what appeared to be an Amtrak train and flew off screen. I don't know if it was real or fake, it had a grainy, ghostly, ghastly quality. I don't think it was fake.

There is an unimaginable quantity of media out there, and a disproportionately large amount of it is pretty horrid. Policing it is a very vague business. Someone used the phrase witch-hunt, it may have been in Townsend's document on TSG, and I think that's very appropriate for the current condition. Imagine it's medieval times and suddenly magic is real. It's not great wizards and sorcery, it's common and everywhere. People dabble with it because it's new and fancy and interesting and a great way to pass the time. Many people use it to do many wonderful things. On countless occasions someone is mixing ingredients and turns their neighbor's cat into a lamppost. Oops, gotta remember not to try that ingredient again. Sad, but there was no malice involved. There are also those who hear about things gone wrong and wonder "is it true? would that really happen?" and try it for themselves, see the nasty results, and find a sick fascination for it. Now imagine the witch-hunts beginning in earnest. People are immolated or drowned because someone heard from their cousin that Patty down the block gave Old Man Harris the evil eye and the very next day his wife died. The crops aren't growing, the winter was harsh, Timmy's cat is a lamppost, and someone has to pay.

Am I saying Townsend is innocent? No. Am I saying he's guilty? No. Am I saying there's a lot of sick shiat out there and you don't have to go looking for it to find it? Yes. Hell, imagine the preteen girl with the normal preteen girl's most common interest getting on the web for the first time. What does she search for? Horses. or worse, horses and girls.

What's to be done? who knows. Standards would be a good start, responsibility to be as advertised, but how do you enforce that? I just checked my email for the first time in 2 days and I had 76 new messages. 3 were from Tori Amos newsletter I signed up for, another 6 or so were from a discussion group I'm involved in, the rest were all sorts of nastiness. Porn, drugs, home loans, credit cards, dvds, none of which I've ever shopped for online.

It's a big nasty mess, and until something catastrophic happens to clean it out and re-create it with standards it won't get any better. How do you do that without going Orwellian? How do you police it in the meantime? Answers to both a) and b) are simple. You don't.

t
 
2003-01-15 01:37:07 AM
Zaago writes: WHY I shot you is the issue.

In the sense that you have to establish malice aforethought, I'd agree. But, one doesn't need a motive for that. Motives may be very important in the sentencing phase; but, a motive isn't necessary to convict. I might, for example, get a lesser sentence if I plotted and killed my daughter's rapist. But, that doesn't change the fact that I would have committed murder.

Two persons commit identical acts. One appreciates the wrongness of the act and the other does not. Those two are certainly viewed differently.

Only if the lack of appreciation is the result of some kind of mental defect. If a person simply operates under a different set of morals, he isn't protected by that.

Courts sometimes consider the ability of the person charged to understand the wrongness of his crime.

Absolutely. But, again, that goes to the question of mental ability. A person who CAN'T understand the seriousness of his acts has a defense. A person who merely DOESN'T understand has no defense.
 
2003-01-15 01:52:28 AM
I know what you mean, thoreau. Go on kazaa or any of those and search for something lots of people will also be searching for (sadly, porn is probably the only kind of video I ever tried to download). Downloaded this one video one time, supposed to be some chicks or something. Started watching it, and it turned out to be video of some guy getting a knife stuck in his throat. It was grainy and crappy and didnt look like any movie Id ever seen, so I did a search, and sure enough, it was footage of some poor bastard taken hostage getting his throat slit. Dont know what my point was, just wanted to share. My point is, I guess, that it could just as easily been Pete's fabled 2-year old rape video, what with the fake name it was given. Be careful out there, there are some sickass farkers running about.
 
2003-01-15 01:55:29 AM
yea hes got some mental problems, looks as though he was using this woman as a scapegoat for his own sick perspective.
 
2003-01-15 01:57:57 AM
On the topic of Curiosity, i think people with overt curiosity towards kiddy pr0n, etc, should be redirected to the REAL reward for curiosity: Vanilla Coke.
 
2003-01-15 01:58:30 AM
20,000 arrested. "Around" 130 convicted. Don't those numbers sound slightly disproportionate to you guys? Thats like arresting a whole arena full of people only to find a mere handful of perps! Can anyone say "witch hunt?"

By the way, what Pete did WAS illegal. Is Pete a severely twisted farker or a misguided knob with an abusive childhood? Only GOD and Pete know for sure. I'm sure not qualified to judge him.
 
2003-01-15 02:02:28 AM
test
 
2003-01-15 02:37:32 AM
-icle.
 
2003-01-15 02:46:47 AM
What we really need is more of that 'virtual', computer-generated fake child porn. That way people who need to get off on it can do so without supporting a business that might harm real kids. I never understand why that concept offends people so much... what's wrong with some guy whacking off to an electronic drawing? No real kids involved... Or even simpler, just hire a bunch of underdeveloped but of-age porn stars and have 'em pretend to be kids. What other guys do, if it involves only themselves, is their own business. I don't care.

BTW - Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've been surfing the internet for a long long long time, including many many many porn sites, and have accidentally stumbled upon various sick s#!t, but never any child porn. I'm sure it's out there, but I'd guess you have to LOOK for it to find it.
 
2003-01-15 03:09:02 AM
"have you ever seen a grown man naked?"
"have you ever seen the inside of a Turkish prison?"
"do you like movies about gladiators?"
 
2003-01-15 03:24:50 AM
I have been on the web since ~1994 and have never come across anything worse than your normal everyday porno sites. Of course, I'm not LOOKING for sex with animals cos I'm just not curious. (Nekkid photos of Brad Pitt are another thing...)

I think the difference between accidentally coming across such a site and PAYING WITH YOUR CREDIT CARD FOR ACCESS TO SUCH A SITE is huge. Townshend didn't "stumble" onto the site; he paid to gain access.

He's the same as the pyromaniac who stands outside the burning building to watch the action; Townshend is purporting to be a fighter against kiddie porn when he really gets off on checking it out and this is the safest way he can check it out (at least he thought so).

Pervert should rot in prison and be raped on a daily basis.
 
2003-01-15 04:14:38 AM
Whether Pete went to the child pornography sites and paid for access to them via credit card for research purposes into child abuse or for some mental problem sexually can only be known by Pete himself.

However, if this was being done for research why was no-one told before he did the research. That would have been the smart, upfront and honest thing to do.
 
2003-01-15 04:56:51 AM
Eraser8 and Kerouac

Rather than argue the unknowables such as the intent behind the actions, I think we need to look at his actions more closely.

He confesses he has been a porn addict all his life. Most of the people I've known that were heavily into porn are not satisfied by the same 'level' of porn or porn action after a period of time has elapsed. They need to go looking for something more, bigger, nastier, more participants, more perverted, etc.

It isn't a big jump to go from 'normal' porn addict with a jaded appetite to some who surfs for kiddie porn out of curiousity for the next perversion. Even when it is an illegal one. The very fact he talks about the 'impossibility' of avoiding it, and being so very curious about it, makes my alarm bells start ringing on this one.

Kiddie porn viewers often work in rings, or are in contact with each other and look out for each other. I think the only way we can guess his intentions with any hope of certainty would be to find out when the police cracked the porn site, and how long they let the 'sting' of collecting names, addresses, and credit card numbers or participants continue.

If Pete was a bona fide member (ie a sicko) and got word that the site was compromised, posting the article would be the first and only way out of it. It only went up a year ago. I wonder how long he has been a member of the site for. I wonder if the credit card he used was in his name. If it wasn't, I'd be very suspicious.

Regardless of the intent for the use of the images (research or gratification) he knew very well that the act of purchasing and downloading the images was illegal. Wanking to the pics isn't the part that is against the law. Purchasing the pics and downloading them, is. He is guilty of the crime either way, and can be changed.

That's the law as I understand it.
 
2003-01-15 05:19:09 AM

It's really worrying that intent is not a factor in these cases.


If the webmaster of a really high profile site, or any site really, chooses to use an javascript image cache, css-p or any number of teqhniques to send an image along with the visible site, you have no control. You wouldn't even know it was there unless you checked the source or your cache.

 
2003-01-15 05:25:26 AM
Purple_nurple

It's really worrying that intent is not a factor in these cases.

Having an image pushed to your machine by a random website and paying specifically to download it are two very different things. One obviously shows intent.

This guy was caught paying and downloading. Obviously illegal. Can that really be argued ?

His excuse is a little bit Winona Ryder for me.
 
2003-01-15 05:29:34 AM
Tadlette
I'm not defending Pete Towshend, he manufactured his own misfortune witout a doubt. I just realised that you could really screw someone over. Just send them a link to a page with some pretext, like it's a funny pictrure or something. Push a few dodgy images through to their cache and let the met know that they've got dodgy piccies on their hard drive.

Busted!
Sorry for threadjacking, I do that a lot.

 
2003-01-15 05:31:21 AM
let the met know that they've got dodgy piccies on their hard drive

I mean metropolitan police. Or FBI, KGB, whatever!

 
2003-01-15 05:34:50 AM
Purple_nurple

Gotcha :)

Yeah, but in that case you'd have a very good chance of saying you didn't know they were there, and didn't go looking for them. When you've used your traceable credit card to access them, your story looks a whole lot less credible. Just about the only thing you could do is make up a story, like the one on his website in fact.

I threadjack with the best of them but your comment was pretty much on topic to me !
 
2003-01-15 05:40:08 AM
Talkin' about the difference in... generations...
 
2003-01-15 05:42:52 AM
Think that would stand up in court? If the images where hotlinked straight off a known offending website, say based in Russia, no one would be able to prove where they came from. The court probably wouldn't care.
 
2003-01-15 06:14:42 AM
Genuine songs by The Who where the titles have recently taken on a whole new connotation. Possibly.

Album: The Who Sings My Generation:
The Kids are Alright
It's Not True
A Legal Matter

Album: A Quick One:
Run, Run, Run
A Quick One While He's Away
My Generation

Album: The Who Sell Out:
Mary-Anne with the Shaky Hands
Our Love Was
I Can't Reach You
Glittering Girl
Someone's Coming
Glow Girl

Album: Tommy:
It's a Boy
Do You Think It's Alright?
Fiddle About
Go to the Mirror Boy
Tommy Can You Hear Me

Album: Quadrophenia:
The Real Me
I'm One
The Dirty Jobs
I've Had Enough
Bell Boy

Album: The Who By Numbers:
Slip Kid
Squeeze Box
Dreaming from the Waist
In a Hand or a Face

Album: Face Dances:
How Can You Do It Alone
Another Tricky Day

Album: It's Hard:
It's Your Turn
Dangerous
One at a Time
Why Did I Fall for That
Cry if You Want

Album: Live at Leeds:
Young Man Blues
Shakin' All Over

Album: Who's Last:
See Me, Feel Me

Album: Join Together:
A Little Is Enough
Rough Boys
 
2003-01-15 06:45:03 AM
01-14-03 07:29:20 PM Number2
we've gotta find a better way to punish sex offenders. I think that jail time should just be part of it, and that extensive therapy should be required. is it? i don't really know the law that well.


I may be wrong, but I believe the current system in Britain is that they can choose whether or not to go on a therapy programme, in which case they'll be released when they're deemed to be safe again. However, that has the huge problem that they can be very convincing liars, so they sometimes just end up going straight out and offending again.
 
2003-01-15 08:08:22 AM
I know police have studied Townshend's report in some detail. First of all, they had to use a palette knife because the pages were all stuck together.
 
2003-01-15 08:34:59 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't see how actively searching for kiddie porn sites helps him conquer his childhood demons. I know a couple of people personally who were raped when they were kids and they went to therapy, not the internet, for help. How does looking at a 2 y o being raped help you deal with some vague memories of an evil Grandmother and what she may or may not have done to you?
And you have to be a total idiot to enter credit card info to enter a kp site. Duh! Like he police are stupid. Why do they do it anyway? Because they are sick beyond caring.
And what is Pete, Scotland friggin' Yard or something? There are real police out there looking for this stuff. Now we have anti-kiddie porn crusader Peter Townshend on the job. Great.Sort of a internet vigilante/aging rock star. Just freakin' great!
Pete's a strange one, isn't he? Anybody remember the statement he came out with a few years ago about his homosexual tendencies? Why would you make a public statement about this many years after the fact? He's been married for decades and he has children. What possesed him to embarrass his entire family that time? Something ain't right with him.
My brother told me a story about when he was a cop and he walked in on a guy raping his own 2 y o daughter on the kitchen table. It was everything he could to keep from beating this guy to a bloody pulp. I think that's a normal reaction. What do you do with somebody that sick? Rehabilitate him? How? Clockwork Orange treatment?
I say a bullet to the head of anybody like him and anyone who needs that type of extreme perversion to get their rocks off. They are sick beyond repair and how they got there I don't care.
Now I'm off to do some hands-on research on high-grade bud. I'm writing my autobiography, you see, and my research may be able to help the police win the drug war.......... yeah, that's the ticket........
 
2003-01-15 08:43:05 AM
I didn't bother to parse this thread against the one from a couple weeks ago titled "What were the best Fark stories/threads of 2002? Voting enabled" to see if the same people are posting in both threads, but I'm betting that if I did, I would find a lot of hypocrites.

What I am referring to is that 3Horn's topless stepsister placed 3rd, 5th, and 8th in the voting results. If you add the votes together, she beat out out "The Pickle Incident" and the "Ash2K Photoshop" for the #1 favorite thread of 2002 as voted by you, me, and the rest of the fark community.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that she is a *bit* shy of being 18.

So, let me get this straight...

Two weeks ago, child porn was the best thing fark had to offer in 2002. Today, according to this thread, it is sick and punishible by death?

Where do you draw the line?
 
2003-01-15 09:17:46 AM
That was fun.

I actually didn't mean any of that legal stuff - playing devil's advocate, looking stuff up on findlaw that can distort the truth.

My original concepts still apply - there is no legal difference between buying drugs in a sting and paying for child porn. That's just a fact.

The red herrings here are the contract-bargain type-stuff, because they're entirely irrelevant to this case.


And yes, Pre-law boy, Mens Rea has been found to mean both. It's an interpretation.


Good luck in second semester. You should have been able to pulverize those arguments, and you failed miserably.
 
2003-01-15 09:21:15 AM
ummmm, research, yeah that's it... research....
 
2003-01-15 09:34:29 AM
Kerouac & Eraser8

You guys are really, really boring.
It's all a matter of intent. Some poster earlier said that he (the poster) had NO porn on his computer. Well, the simple act of posting here caused him to download that 1X1 pixel image at the end of LordArgent's post. Now if that image is really a 640X480 picture of kiddie porn, guess what? The poster, and everyone in this thread, now has kiddie porn on his computer
 
2003-01-15 10:01:12 AM
Voodoo_banjo-

I know. That's the kind of point I was trying to make before eraser8 got all into the contract stuff.

He seems to think that just committing the act makes you guilty - as if we're all suddenly guilty as well, because of that pic.

I was trying to point out that there's al ot more to that, but he went off on some kinda tangent, and I followed, until I got bored and went to sleep.
 
2003-01-15 10:17:11 AM
Voodoo_Banjo - Man, you said it! Lawyers. Gotta love 'em.
You make a good point about LordArgents' post but I still see a huge difference between that and using a credit card to access a site after searching for it.
I mean, I can imagine what type of perversion is out there. I know what kind of shiat goes on. But I don't need to look at it. You couldn't make me view it without a gun to my head.
And I still say that there is no place in society for people who look at and especially people who produce kp. If your idea of a good time is raping a small child up the butt and you act out on it or seek out images of this then you don't need to be here. You are a defective machine that needs to be sent back to the manufacturer. If you are willing to ruin another human beings' life just so you can get your jollies then there is no hope for redemption for you. Get help of the psychological kind. EVERYBODY knows that kp is just wrong, wrong, wrong, yet some still choose to persue it. Fark them.
 
2003-01-15 10:44:47 AM
Several have said something along the lines of: "He's already been tried and convicted as a pedophile in the media."

Back this up -- I hear so much blanket media bashing, almost never with evidence. Name or link articles that have jumped to the conclusion.

BTW, I am a journalist, and if I were covering the story, I would note the documents posted on The Smoking Gun high in my next dispatch. OR frame a whole new story around it.
 
2003-01-15 10:56:49 AM
For some historical context, you should all download this movie: Perversion for Profit (41 MB).
 
2003-01-15 11:03:22 AM
Child pornographers are the lowest of the low, no arguement from me. However, if a policeman is investigating child porn he might use a credit card to enter a site to gather evidence. His intent is not to commit a crime but to gather evidence. That's mostly how I see it with Pete. I don't think his intent was to commit a crime, but rather to gather evidence. Technically he is probably guilty, but there are always degrees of guilt. It's not black or white.
 
2003-01-15 11:08:32 AM
This bears no relevance to Mr. Townsend but..............
I got an e-mail once from some porn company..I was joking w/ my girlfriend that I met another girl & clicked on the link..It was all adult porn but the next time I turned on my computer my home page was "Child Paysite"..I about shiated my britches..Luckily nobody came knockin'..I had to erase my hard drive b/c no one (and I asked about 10 friends in IS/IT) could figure out how to get the home page changed..I felt like a complete loser when they saw it but I did absolutely nothing wrong
 
2003-01-15 11:28:50 AM
If Pete Townshend is molesting/fondling/abusing children, lock him up. If Pete Townshend is actively surfing child porn and paying to do so, fine him. If the law can prove Pete Townshend was NOT doing research, he is guilty.
 
2003-01-15 11:47:44 AM
Buster_hymen: Your security settings must be fairly low for that to happen. If you plan on body surfing, you should amp up the browser's paranoia meter.

Usually browsers have to prompt you to change your home page. As for what to do if that happens, well, delete your IE cache and go one of two ways: get a good "cleaner" program that does a hard erase of unused space, or download like mad to fill your hard drive.

I'd made the mistake of letting acquaintances use my computer while I was out. Found a lot of porn (nothing illegal) but it could have been worse. Lesson learned.
 
2003-01-15 11:49:18 AM
Maynard James Keenan is incredibly effeminate in person.

Once when I thought I was pregnant, I was searching the web for information. I don't remember my exact words but one of my search terms was "baby". One of the top ten results was something related to "baby sex" or "baby farking", can't recall exactly. I did not click on the link, so I guess that makes me one of the uncurious ones.

So I do believe Pete when he says he stumbled upon a site that way. I just don't think it was necessary for him to pay to access more, research or not. He's a musician, not a researcher.
 
2003-01-15 12:01:03 PM
Bigbadideasinaction: Thanks for the future tips..Hopefully they are not needed..Fingers are crossed
 
2003-01-15 12:25:40 PM
Not that you'll read this, but Dotderf:

"Just on an ironic note, until late August, the webmaster of Pete's forum was an underaged girl. No, he didn't kill her, instead she turned 18.. She did claim to have done drugs with the Who's bassist, that ought to be worth something to the tabloids."

Where the HELL did you get that? Christ. I've known Pete's webmaster for four years, and it's been the same webmaster since the start. He's a man in his 30s.

Feel free to provide a link proving your incredibly misguided statement.
 
2003-01-15 12:28:32 PM
Voodoo_Banjo and TheMikey, I agree with your views.
 
2003-01-15 12:43:04 PM
Kerouac writes: My original concepts still apply - there is no legal difference between buying drugs in a sting and paying for child porn.

Your original point was somewhat different. It was that there is no difference in an individual's buying porn for the purpose of writing a book decrying the practice and a police sting operation. I argued that there is a difference. And, I was right.

That's the kind of point I was trying to make before eraser8 got all into the contract stuff.

Perhaps you missed it, but other posters came forward to clarify the point I had already made to you any number of times: the use of the word "bargain" does not indicate the existence of a contract (or, more relevantly, the existence of a discussion of contracts). You've apparently gone contract mad -- despite the fact that multiple posters have shown you to be completely off base.

He seems to think that just committing the act makes you guilty

You are a moron. You apparently cannot keep pace with the simplest of arguments. I challenge you to show anyplace where I have argued (or, even seem to have argued) that simply viewing child pornography ought to be an offense. I argued that PAYING for porn was criminal regardless of motive.
 
2003-01-15 12:43:34 PM
Two things I gotta say:

1) Watching any other crime isn't illegal. As 'world's scariest police chases' proves. Why is this different?

2) Ignorance is no excuse, in the eyes of the law. (Uk at least)
 
2003-01-15 12:47:05 PM
Voodoo_Banjo writes: His intent is not to commit a crime but to gather evidence. That's mostly how I see it with Pete.

You must surely understand the difference between a police action and a private one. Even if we were to accept the argument that Townshend merely intended to do research, that alone isn't a sufficient defense. His "research" provided financial support to child pornographers and their criminal enterprise.
 
2003-01-15 01:03:32 PM
if he was aware of a 'witch hunt' going on, why did he jump in the fire by using his credit card number? it makes no sense!
 
2003-01-15 01:05:55 PM
Gaul=gall.

After the Romans put the biatch slap on them the Gauls haven't had the sack to do much of anything but surrender.
 
2003-01-15 01:06:37 PM
Damn wrong thread. sorry, delete pls.
 
2003-01-15 01:10:58 PM
Rostit: I still think your solution is a bit extreme, but yeah, I guess I didn't fully represent your opinion. My apologies.
Also, I do want to clarify that I don't have a problem with the death penalty when it's justified. Westerfield (the jerk who exploited and killed his seven year old neighbor) is a pretty good example of someone who deserves it. However, Townshend isn't.

JR
 
2003-01-15 01:11:07 PM
I read Pete's post (TSG article) on his website long before this news came out. Shortly before the last Who tour, he reposted it with some additional information. I agree with Daltry's assessment that PT was probably naive in the way he went about his "research." He a multi-millionaire for pete's sake. I think that if he really wanted kiddie porn for his own consumption, there are a thousand different ways he could go about it that didn't involve his own credit card number. Some people need to witness things for themselves to believe they're true. If you're going to decry the availability of child pornography on the internet, saying "I heard you can get it real easily" lacks impact. Telling people that you can punch in your credit card number and pictures from a website based in America's heartland would certainly be more effective. Most people in this day and age aren't savvy 'net users. A lot of people don't belive this sort of thing is being run like any other business. Maybe Pete could have made a splash and gotten a larger public outcry going. We won't know I guess. But having read his writings on this subject prior to this recent publicity, I believe him. Maybe more will come out later to make me change my mind, but until then, I'll support him.
 
2003-01-15 02:10:17 PM
All I can say, is I hope it is not true. I have been an avid Who fan and Townsend fan all my life. But if it is true, well, Pete, it's time to Face the Face.
 
2003-01-15 02:21:41 PM
This has been a great thread, very interesting. I read the first 200 posts yesterday, and I've been thinking about the subject all night. Please forgive me if anyone else has covered this material 200 posts since.

Firstly, on a technical note: I don't think it's proper to draw a distinction between viewing an image and consuming media by any other means. That is, to view an image is equivalent to reading a book/story, hearing a song/speech, or watching a video/play.

Secondly, (this is what I didn't hear anyone say yesterday) there is a huge difference between merely consuming/viewing a piece of media, and condoning, accepting, or supporting the content of that media. Certainly, we've all seen images, or video of violent acts, that a normal person rejects and considers immoral, bad, evil, or wrong in some way.

Thirdly, I believe the standard has to be action. There is no thought so horrible or wrong that the thought alone should be a crime. People have thoughts which they recognise as wrong or criminal, but the vast majority of people don't carry out these acts.

Fourly, if you make a subject taboo, (e.g. by throwing people in prison for searching out a subject in a search engine, or having discussion about it on the internet) you prevent people from publicly working to prevent the offensive act.

I've read the bible, but it didn't make me a christian.
I've read the Bhagavad Gita, but it didn't make me a hindu.
I've seen the Terminator, but i didn't believe robots from the future could come back and kill me.
I've seen video of a group of iranians stoning an adulterer to death, but i didn't think it was right.
I've seen video of a group of chechen rebels torturing a russian soldier by cutting his cock off, i didn't think that was too good either.

How far are we from throwing Tom Clancy in prison for plotting terrorist plots?

How about Stephan King? He's got a sick violent thought or two running around in his head. How many people has he thought about killing? How many people did he kill?

You know where i'm going with this... Strong is the first amendment, remember what you've learned, save you it can...
 
2003-01-15 02:49:59 PM
"Stinkfist" is great, but I don't see quite what it's about.
On the one hand, it could be taken literally, to be about fisting (hence all the penetration). It could also be taken more as a song about penetrating on another level, about one letting another in.
Jody Westmoreland (Jod­e8u[nospam-﹫-backwards]loa*c­om) offered his take on the song: "It is using a fist up the ass metaphor for the desensitizing of the public. Saying that when (in the 50's for example) there was nothing shocking, in order for the public to be shocked / stimulated, they had to see something new. It was uncomfortable at first but soon we grew used to it. The process continues so that now it takes the whole damn arm for us to feel / be stimulated by something. The speaker would have it 'no other way' ...stressing that we must be stimulated...never allowing the mind to rest."
 
2003-01-15 02:51:24 PM
above post was quoted from the toolfaq at http://toolshed.down.net
 
2003-01-15 03:01:57 PM
I have seen underaged naked boys and girls without searching for them. You follow enough popup ads and links and it will be on your screen. I sent some emails to various child protection agencies, hoping to let them know where these were and get the places shut down and they basically told me there was shiat-all I could do about it. The sites were hosted in Japan, where child porn is not illegal. I ended up giving up and avoiding clicking on any links that had even the slightest suspicion of child porn (ie. 'teen girls' or 'young hot chicks'). It's not worth being arrested by some overzealous police officer.
 
2003-01-15 03:18:16 PM
but at least you made an attempt...
 
2003-01-15 04:49:05 PM
What did I say that necessitated deletion?
 
2003-01-15 05:30:06 PM
1. The company in Fort Worth Texas that Peter gave his credit info to was busted in August of 2001. 4 months BEFORE he wrote that bullshiat essay. Look it up on google... the name of the company was Landslide Productions... the investigation was called Operation Avalanche. That essay is simply a case of him trying to cover his kid diddling ass.

2. Someone posted that the cops have found no child porn on his computer. If that's the case.. so the fark what?? The guy is a farking millionaire. He can replace a computer no problem. The one with the evidence on the hard drive he could have demolished, the same way he used to demolish guitars and amplifiers.

I've always liked the Who's music, listening to it just won't be the same.
 
2003-01-15 05:40:05 PM
I don't know what is worse: looking at child porn, or being stupid enough to pay for any type of porn. Someone should point Pete to the a.b.p.e.* groups.
 
2003-01-15 06:33:38 PM
The Who song "Just a little is enough" was admitted by Pete to has a perverted secret meaning. I have a 1987 Who video where Pete introduces the song and giggles about his secret. I alway thought that it was about some kind of gay thing, although I couldn't figure it out. It is now clear that "Just a Little is Enough" is about Petes child molestation leanings.
 
2003-01-15 06:48:54 PM
nopopnostyle- good research. I hope the truth comes out, whatever it may be.
 
2003-01-15 06:59:32 PM
NoPopNoStyle

Thanks, your information cements my opinion - he more than likely wrote the essay in an attempt to misdirect any investigation into his actions. Porn addict tipping into the darker side as so many do.

To the person that asked why someone so rich and famous would use a traceable credit card to buy kiddie porn, sometimes when a person has been very rich and famous for so long they think they are above the law and above consequences. Wouldn't be surprised if he thought his actions would never come back to bite him and so didn't think twice about using his card.

People really suck sometimes.
 
2003-01-15 08:50:11 PM
Life would seem so easy on the other track
But even a hurricane won't turn me back
You might be an island
On the distant horizon
But the little I see
Looks like heaven to me
I don't care if the ocean gets rough
Just a little is enough

Common sense's tell me not to try'n continue
But I'm after a piece of that diamond in you
So keep an eye open
My spirit ain't broken
Your love is so incredible
Your body so edible
You give me an overdose of love
Just a little is enough
 
2003-01-15 09:00:05 PM
Pete has a good story on Lil' Bit
his own words...
"Well I'm going through my first real hiccup in my marriage," and he said
"Oh, what's it about?" And I said, " My wife doesn't love me any more." And he said , "Well, she's there, isn't she?" And I said, " Yeah," and he
said, " Then she must love you a little bit," and I said "Yeah, yeah, she probably loves me a little bit." And he said "Well, when you're talking
about love, which is in itself by nature infinite, then a little is enough."
 
2003-01-15 09:33:39 PM
I guess this is what the subliminal message was in The Who's "The Kids Are Alright" video. Uggh.. can't even fathom the idea of 10 year old Bobby bleeding from the rectum from some sick fark! And of course, everyone - like Winona Ryder- is doing "research". Blah.
 
2003-01-15 10:25:29 PM
Pete's innocent
 
2003-01-16 12:52:08 AM
I believe the guy!

Just poke around Napster at some otherwise innocuous sounding names.

I was downloading humorous commercials and vids. Like most stuff, you click on it and wait to see what you get. I don't know if what I downloaded was real honest to goodness kiddy-porn or not, but from the few seconds that I saw, I am sure that is where it is going.

I did a cold shut down of my computer. Because I'm a paranoid SOB, I've never been to napster since.
 
2003-01-16 03:03:26 PM
NoPopNoStyle-

He wrote the essay in January 2002. Show me where it says that he visited that specific Texas site in January 2002. He has said in other interviews that he visited the site in 1997. After that whole discussion about the site, he writes: "Since 1997 I have been attempting to prepare some kind of document with respect to all this for wider publication."

You're not a lawyer/proofreader by profession, are you? You just "diddle" on the side?
 
2003-01-19 01:08:50 AM
I believe you are innocent of these charges, Pete
 
Displayed 472 of 472 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report