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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 472 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report