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

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

36690 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2003 at 5:05 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



472 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-01-14 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[image from lordargent.com too old to be available]
 
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).
 
Displayed 50 of 472 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report