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 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
 
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