Clearly the prosecutor is an anti-dentite

/also +1

All my dentists live in Texas.

ew

Sparks v Sparks?

...with delicious candy?

Wow, two callous-yet-funny career analogies for prison rape in one day. It's so mean in here.

This is what happens when you let liberal enclaves flourish in a god-fearing state

"...they received a tip that someone had uploaded images of child pron to an MSN group, an online forum."

Lulz

hundreddollarman: Is it too late to get this into the Headline of the Year Contest?

I'm not sure, it might depend on when the cavity fillings begin ...

Was it the kind of child porn with 17 year olds or the kind with 3 year olds? They really should specify and the sentences should be a hell of a lot different depending on which one it was.

ParaHandy: This is what happens when you let liberal enclaves flourish in a god-fearing state

OK, you've got the trolling for libs in this thread, I'm out.

slc11082: Why is it a crime?
a picture is just a picture.
If I have a picture of someone getting killed do I go to prison for that? No..
looking at evidence of a crime is not commiting a crime.

The theory articulated by SCOTUS is that a demand/market for said images leads to more child pr0n. It's why child pr0n is not protected under the First Amendment - but fake, Photoshopped images are. I'd Google the case for you, but "child Pr0n" isn't something I want to be Googling without a tinfoil hat.

IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer)

On a lighter note, I used to live there, near MoPac and Farwest in Austin... it was a nice place

Sparks ordered him to pay a $25,000 fine, to register as a sex offender and not to possess any pornography during the 10 years that he is under supervision following prison.

So, the jail time, fine, registration and probation I have no problem with. But the man is not allowed to posses any pornography at all for a decade after he gets out? Banning him from possessing child porn does not even need to be said, being illegal in and of itself, but restricting his access to plain old regular porno after he has paid his debt to society seems to be legislating morality to me.

hundreddollarman: Is it too late to get this into the Headline of the Year Contest?

I don't know. Ask Drew if he has an opening you can fill.

Fill Her up

Poe: So, the jail time, fine, registration and probation I have no problem with. But the man is not allowed to posses any pornography at all for a decade after he gets out? Banning him from possessing child porn does not even need to be said, being illegal in and of itself, but restricting his access to plain old regular porno after he has paid his debt to society seems to be legislating morality to me.

That bothers me too. That's like being arrested for trespassing (because you're protesting) then not being allowed to protest while on probation.

+1 subs!

At $46k/yr to keep him in prison, I think he should be made to work in the prison clinic cleaning teeth 8 hours a day.

@ Poe:

I wonder what they're using for the legal definition of "pornography."

HempHead: At $46k/yr to keep him in prison, I think he should be made to work in the prison clinic cleaning teeth 8 hours a day.

With golf privileges on Fridays, right?

Main
Sports
Business
Geek
Entertainment
Politics
Video

Fark should just create a "diddling underage people" category

Is it safe?

Well, is it??

StanTheMan: The theory articulated by SCOTUS is that a demand/market for said images leads to more child pr0n.

Then wouldn't the prosecution need to prove that he paid for it?

Poe: Sparks ordered him to pay a $25,000 fine, to register as a sex offender and not to possess any pornography during the 10 years that he is under supervision following prison.

So, the jail time, fine, registration and probation I have no problem with. But the man is not allowed to posses any pornography at all for a decade after he gets out? Banning him from possessing child porn does not even need to be said, being illegal in and of itself, but restricting his access to plain old regular porno after he has paid his debt to society seems to be legislating morality to me.

That is actually a fairly standard restriction. The authorities are worried that by allowing him/her to view porn, they could start down a "slippery slope", where they start out watching normal porn, switch to some "barely 18" stuff, and then are back to looking for CP.

Not that it would be easy for them to get porn of any type, they usually are not allowed to have internet access while on probation either. Imagine 10 years with no internet access whatsoever. You can't even own a gaming console and have an online subscription for it.

And if you are wondering how I know this: I am currently a state-approved chaperone for a sex offender on probation in the city I live in. I could go on and on about stuff he is not allowed to do, but let's just say his life pretty much sucks now even though he is out of prison.

Gyrfalcon: You know, even if he isn't or wasn't getting the butt-f*cking treatment, showing him kiddy porn whilst having his teeth drilled sans anesthetic for a few weeks might well cure him of his alleged addiction.

Dunno if that would fall into the "cruel, unusual and/or torture" restriction, just saying.

MrEricSir 2011-12-09 02:17:40 AM

StanTheMan: The theory articulated by SCOTUS is that a demand/market for said images leads to more child pr0n.

Then wouldn't the prosecution need to prove that he paid for it?

No. As I recall, SCOTUS didn't specify a need to prove payment for it, or economic benefit derived from it as the market for this stuff is informal and creation of child pr0n isn't really for economic gain but for their enjoyment and trading images/films with like minded group of people who deal with this as a sort of "hobby".

I would assume it would be pretty difficult for anybody to make a buck on producing child pr0n because most developed nations aggressively prosecute just the mere possession of the stuff.

Zebulon:
Not that it would be easy for them to get porn of any type, they usually are not allowed to have internet access while on probation either. Imagine 10 years with no internet access whatsoever. You can't even own a gaming console and have an online subscription for it.

And if you are wondering how I know this: I am currently a state-approved chaperone for a sex offender on probation in the city I live in. I could go on and on about stuff he is not allowed to do, but let's just say his life pretty much sucks now even though he is out of prison.

I'm wondering how this is enforced, though. Does it mean he's not allowed to own a laptop/computer at all?

At first, no, he was not allowed to have a laptop or own a computer at all. He could use a computer at work, and go onto his company's network, but was not allowed to access the internet as a whole. He is nearing the end of his 10 year probation though, so his PO recently told him he could have a computer at home that does have access to the internet. He had to have a keylogger installed by his PO though, so his PO can see every single thing he does online.

StanTheMan: The theory articulated by SCOTUS is that a demand/market for said images leads to more child pr0n. It's why child pr0n is not protected under the First Amendment - but fake, Photoshopped images are. I'd Google the case for you, but "child Pr0n" isn't something I want to be Googling without a tinfoil hat.

Why wouldn't that rule apply to any other image depicting something illegal? If a group of people get off trading and looking at pictures of people getting beaten up, does that not also create demand for it, resulting it more people getting beaten up? Shouldn't these people also be convicted of assault, just like the people who committed the act?

Prison rape jokes again? The 1980s called. They want their meme back.

Hell no, I didn't tell them about 9/11. We suffered, why shouldn't they?

LOL rape is funny when it happens to men LOL

Are x-rays of a child's mouth pornography?

Would laugh again, +1.

LDM90: LOL rape is funny when it happens to men LOL

I was about to mention that. Where are the rape isn't funny people? Make a joke about slipping a woman a roofie and they are all over like flies on shiat even if you don't actually mention rape at all. Make a joke about a man getting anally raped and they don't give a damn.

ThisNameSux: Was it the kind of child porn with 17 year olds or the kind with 3 year olds? They really should specify and the sentences should be a hell of a lot different depending on which one it was.

I always zero my hdd after downloading CP. I don't even look at it. What is wrong with people...

Why would it matter, it's just 1's and 0's. It's not like he's abusing actual children.

hundreddollarman: Is it too late to get this into the Headline of the Year Contest?


came to say this.

Nominated!

Gyrfalcon: You know, even if he isn't or wasn't getting the butt-f*cking treatment, showing him kiddy porn whilst having his teeth drilled sans anesthetic for a few weeks might well cure him of his alleged addiction.

Dunno if that would fall into the "cruel, unusual and/or torture" restriction, just saying.



/Kubrickian

Jabberwookiee: Gyrfalcon: You know, even if he isn't or wasn't getting the butt-f*cking treatment, showing him kiddy porn whilst having his teeth drilled sans anesthetic for a few weeks might well cure him of his alleged addiction.

Dunno if that would fall into the "cruel, unusual and/or torture" restriction, just saying.

[i.imgur.com image 400x300]


Oops.

I should scroll before I post.