david_gaithersburg: untaken_name: david_gaithersburg: The lesson here? The government can charge you with anything they want, it doesn't matter if you did something or not.

Yeah, you will be found innocent, after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and many months in and out of the prison system.

You're quite the optimist. My guess is he'll be convicted. Over 90% of prosecuted people are. Care to wager on this specific case? I got $20 says he's convicted.

.
.
Convicted of what? Talking?

FTFA: "He is charged with receipt and possession of child pornography."

He will be convicted of what he's charged with (assuming he ends up in court).

untaken_name: krackpipe: Hector Remarkable:

Our economy has been heading toward this a bit longer than 10 years. Look at the history of the national debt - it took 200 years to go from $0 to $4 billion, and then 40-some years later it's $15 trillion. It's the fastest growth of a nation's debt ever in history! USA #1 debtors!

One things for sure, overpolicing ourselves is not going to restore our GDP. Policing is an important service, but it has to be smartly managed and cost-effective to provide its desired social benefit. It's not a revenue producer and takes from the revenue stream.

ZoSo_the_Crowe: lol it's Thad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVS567-mTMA

Dude in the video is the guy arrested in the story. He's a regular poster on 4chan. Why is this not surprising?

OK, real answer please, but is this guy for real?

His house seems a little to clean and orderly for him to have a mental illness.

Article doesn't say he didn't actually have child porn. Considering that he loved to talk about it and it appeared to be his foremost hobby, I'm going to guess that he got busted for child porn because he had child porn.

No sympathy here.

Macular Degenerate: Too obscure?

[www.houseofpaine.org image 302x216]

I sure hope not. Orwell's most famous publication and required reading in many US high schools?
Anyway, if he really didn't have any CP then these FBI people need a slap on the wrist with a machete. Figuratively speaking, you fascist d-bags!

krackpipe: One things for sure, overpolicing ourselves is not going to restore our GDP. Policing is an important service, but it has to be smartly managed and cost-effective to provide its desired social benefit. It's not a revenue producer and takes from the revenue stream.

You need to stop hitting yourself, dude. Law enforcement is big business. Google "prison-industrial complex" for the beginning of the road to knowledge on this issue.

untaken_name: krackpipe: One things for sure, overpolicing ourselves is not going to restore our GDP. Policing is an important service, but it has to be smartly managed and cost-effective to provide its desired social benefit. It's not a revenue producer and takes from the revenue stream.

You need to stop hitting yourself, dude. Law enforcement is big business. Google "prison-industrial complex" for the beginning of the road to knowledge on this issue.

Right. Well, thanks but I think we can all see who's "hitting himself", "dude". Suggest you crack a book or read some facts once or twice between shining your jack boots.

This guy deserves a giant cockpunch for having the most deranged, unfunny sense of humor on the planet. An appropriate punishment would be for all of his friends to unfriend him. No actual illegal content = no criminal case.

Macular Degenerate: Too obscure?

[www.houseofpaine.org image 302x216]

Uh... No. Nothing is obscure on Fark, they say. And 1984 is definitely not obscure anywhere.

KatjaMouse: notmtwain: I think any case would fail on a 1st Amendment basis but I'm not too sure that it wouldn't be allowed under the idea it's like yelling fire.

You know they convicted a fellow a few years ago for possessing hentai porn? Just because it contained images depicting very fictional little girls doing the nasty.

I don't have a problem with that. Even though no children where technically harmed, the desire to harm children is still there. It's only a matter of time before the cartoons are no longer satisfying, and he'll need to start with actual children.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to pop in GTA 4 and see how civilians I can kill before the cops catch me.

FBI = FaceBook Investigators

vwarb: BigBooper: It takes a special kind of Troll to get arrested and charged by the FBI.

Cop: "Alright, I just don't get it. If you aren't a pedo, why did you dedicate your entire life to its advocacy? Why did you do so much to lead us to believe it? Why would you possibly do this if you don't even have any child porn?"

Guy in Article: "For the lulz."

Cop: "Yeah. You're going to jail forever."


It was a goof.

jaylectricity: He's just asking questions. Remember when Rosa Parks asked if she could sit in the first seat she found on the bus?

Dude, that is the funniest comment I've read in a while. Nice.

alowishus: \\
I don't have a problem with that. Even though no children where technically harmed, the desire to harm children is still there. It's only a matter of time before the cartoons are no longer satisfying, and he'll need to start with actual children.


Or the hentai provides an outlet instead of having to go after real kids. It's like saying "if you do weed you'll eventually do hard drugs"...it just doesn't hold weight. Personally, I don't mind it if someone whacks off to hentai if it means they're not harming real kids.

jaylectricity: "What if I adopt a little girl? I'm sure she wouldn't mind becoming my sex slave if I take her away from the orphanage."

He's just asking questions. Remember when Rosa Parks asked if she could sit in the first seat she found on the bus?

You sure made me lol. Thanks.

Not that Freep is the Faux News of the teabagger set or anything like that, but can anyone find a reputable offboard source for this story? Because I haven't so far. Maybe my Ixquick-fu is off, but I'm starting to suspect this just might be not entirely factual.

But supposing it is (or how else could I offer my stupid unsolicited opinion on it), I think some people assume that all laws function according to 'bright lines' -- that is, there is an easily defined and recognisable point between "banninated" and "totally cool, bro," and if a cop even looks at you quizzically when you're just short of that line, he's a total douchebag who deserves to be shot with your powder that you've been keeping dry.

Turns out, that's not how law enforcement, jurisprudence, or the law work. Their job is to protect people, through various means of separating them from each other. And a huge part of that job is figuring out who, when, where, and why. If a cop overhears you talking about shooting cops, he's not going to wait until he sees you with a gun and a carefully devised storyboard of your planned violent act. He's probably going to take the initiative right there, just in case. Because cops know that nearly all criminals talk about their crimes before and after: LOTS of people who may have actually stood a good chance of getting away with terrible crimes hooked themselves up, just by talking about it. (A cop-killer in Connecticut, who committed his crime with no witnesses and left behind no discernible physical evidence, got caught when he was overheard talking about it in a diner. These guys aren't Mensa candidates.)

In a society like ours, where every parent is absolutely sure that The Internet is out to get their precious snowflakes, even joking about CP is enough to get you at least talked to. And rightfully so. Because almost nobody who's actually involved in CP doesn't talk about it at some point. And because the mean ol' federal government shut down all the corner CP stores years ago, they kind of have to talk about it online, if they're interested in actually having it.

And if you read TFA, this guy wasn't just cracking retarded, like most trolls. He was providing factual information about how CP is transported and traded, and positing very plausible scenarios for how he could personally molest a minor. Think about it. If you were sitting next to that guy on the subway, would you have a good laugh about it? Short of taking a tire iron to his smaller-than-average skull, you're probably considering more active involvement in his immediate future. Not because you *assume* he's for real, but because he puts on a mighty convincing act, and you know that such people really exist. The FBI knows they really exist, too. And they're not going to wait and see, either.

The details in this are vague, but charging the guy is not the same as convicting him. This is a pretext to seizing and searching his hard drive, based on the fact that he talked constantly about how to download child porn, what's awesome about child porn and sex with children, and how he might be able to have sex with a child for real, and just might not be entirely forthcoming with law enforcement officers asking him questions about something that they know that he knows is illegal. He might well be just joking. But his stand up act is eerily similar to the real thing. They just want to be sure, that's all. Maybe he'll end up getting some kind of award for his brilliant comedy, get invited onto Star Search or something, and end up guest hosting for Leno. I'm guessing not.

rnatalie: The first rule of child pornography is that you don't talk about child pornography.

Same thing with keeping teenage girls hostage in your dungeon. Scott Tyree found that one the hard way.

Then just where do you suggest we keep them, smart guy?

Olympus Mons: but you also have to hold the witch hunt tendencies back as well.

Aw com'on, this is America! We'd...never...do...something...like...oh, yeah, never mind...

I was much more outraged until I RTFA.

The opinion I have on this subject that I feel safe in discussing on the intertubes is this:

alowishus: I don't have a problem with that. Even though no children where technically harmed, the desire to harm children is still there. It's only a matter of time before the cartoons are no longer satisfying, and he'll need to start with actual children.

I disagree. The hentai provides him an outlet so he won't harm children. Just because it is possible that he will eventually harm children doesn't mean he will.

Uh.. probable cause? if someone was talking about building a bomb or shooting up a school you can be damn sure the authorities would investigate and you would be damn happy they did. In this case they were clued in to a guy talking about doing horrible things to children. They charged him so they could investigate. I for one hope they turn something up. The anti authority sentiment on fark these days is just mind bottling.

The news story came from Freep.com a local news bolg out of Detroit Michigan.

The crime there is through the roof, maybe because they all cry foul if the police show up and arrest anyone even when the guy is standing over a dead body waving a gun. They will then say well copper if you didn't see him firer the gun then you got nothing.

krackpipe: Right. Well, thanks but I think we can all see who's "hitting himself", "dude". Suggest you crack a book or read some facts once or twice between shining your jack boots.

Hmm, let's see, which sounds like an actual thing: Hitting a krackpipe, or hitting an untaken_name? Also, I don't wear jackboots; I hate the police. That doesn't mean I'm retarded enough to think that law enforcement doesn't make money, like someone whose handle I won't mention.

logistic: AbbeySomeone: Marcus Aurelius: He invited the Feds into his house, and then he actually talked to them?

He's screwed.

He's also a dumbass and serves jail time for posting this crap on FB as well as letting them into his home.

Yeah, stupid dumbasses flexing their freedom of speech.

Or maybe he forgot the whole "it's only freedom of speech if he clears it with AbbeySomeone and verifies its ok to post" amendment.

I think because he was making plans on the commission of a crime they can arrest him. When you make plans to have someone taken out they can arrest you even if you have yet killed anyone.

Madbassist1: Check out this guy. He had no pictures, just WRITING IN HIS PERSONAL JOURNAL. 10 years for thought crime.

I think I would classify that as PreCrime instead of Thought Crime, due to his history.

Still not allowed under the Constitution. But, whatever.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Not that Freep is the Faux News of the teabagger set or anything like that, but can anyone find a reputable offboard source for this story? Because I haven't so far. Maybe my Ixquick-fu is off, but I'm starting to suspect this just might be not entirely factual.

But supposing it is (or how else could I offer my stupid unsolicited opinion on it), I think some people assume that all laws function according to 'bright lines' -- that is, there is an easily defined and recognisable point between "banninated" and "totally cool, bro," and if a cop even looks at you quizzically when you're just short of that line, he's a total douchebag who deserves to be shot with your powder that you've been keeping dry.

Turns out, that's not how law enforcement, jurisprudence, or the law work. Their job is to protect people, through various means of separating them from each other. And a huge part of that job is figuring out who, when, where, and why. If a cop overhears you talking about shooting cops, he's not going to wait until he sees you with a gun and a carefully devised storyboard of your planned violent act. He's probably going to take the initiative right there, just in case. Because cops know that nearly all criminals talk about their crimes before and after: LOTS of people who may have actually stood a good chance of getting away with terrible crimes hooked themselves up, just by talking about it. (A cop-killer in Connecticut, who committed his crime with no witnesses and left behind no discernible physical evidence, got caught when he was overheard talking about it in a diner. These guys aren't Mensa candidates.)

In a society like ours, where every parent is absolutely sure that The Internet is out to get their precious snowflakes, even joking about CP is enough to get you at least talked to. And rightfully so. Because almost nobody who's actually involved in CP doesn't talk about it at some point. And because the mean ol' federal government shut down all the corner CP sto ...

Your post is entirely too rational. Please leave Fark immediately.

/+1 internets to you, sir

Ghastly: serpent_sky: So, it doesn't say if he actually had any child pornography. I'm going to guess he did, but I don't know.

If he was just talking about it, I suspect no charges will stick -- even if he is a really sick person.

If he doesn't have any CP and never had any CP then he's still going to be farked because now everyone in his town knows he's been arrested for CP. Even if you're found not guilty that's a stink that will never come off you.

Let's face it, the public CP-mania fueled by the media and Pedo-finder Generals everywhere has granted police agencies almost limitless powers to arrest and fark-up anyone they want to. CP is easier to plant on a hard drive than planting a baggie of coke and once it's published that you've been arrested for CP you are forever branded a pedophile. If your lawyer gets you off it's only a matter of time before some Pedo-finder General takes a baseball bat to your head or burns your house down.

Between fear of pedos and fear of terrorists people are willing to give up all sorts of freedoms (like some cities making it illegal for single, childless males to be alone in any parks that have a playpark in them). Should we really be surprised that speech is one of them.

Look at the internet monitoring bill the Conservatives in Canada want to pass on the platform of "either you're on our side or you're on the side of the child pornographers" (actual farking quote).

You sound like a Pedo-CP who has been outed before.

Ghastly: If he doesn't have any CP and never had any CP then he's still going to be farked because now everyone in his town knows he's been arrested for CP. Even if you're found not guilty that's a stink that will never come off you.

Honey, it's Thad. He's been farked for years because everyone in his town knows he's Thad. This comes as a shock to nobody who's been aware of his existence, but I would be 50/50 not surprised if he actually had or did not have child porn despite obsessing over it. Dude's farked up. I'm positive he's got anime loli porn, I just hope they don't try to use JUST that against him because, seriously, drawings.

Creoena: alowishus: \\
I don't have a problem with that. Even though no children where technically harmed, the desire to harm children is still there. It's only a matter of time before the cartoons are no longer satisfying, and he'll need to start with actual children.


Or the hentai provides an outlet instead of having to go after real kids. It's like saying "if you do weed you'll eventually do hard drugs"...it just doesn't hold weight. Personally, I don't mind it if someone whacks off to hentai if it means they're not harming real kids.

machoprogrammer: alowishus: I don't have a problem with that. Even though no children where technically harmed, the desire to harm children is still there. It's only a matter of time before the cartoons are no longer satisfying, and he'll need to start with actual children.

I disagree. The hentai provides him an outlet so he won't harm children. Just because it is possible that he will eventually harm children doesn't mean he will.

You guys must not have understood why I added this comment about GTA 4.

alowishus: Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to pop in GTA 4 and see how civilians I can kill before the cops catch me.

Even describing the hentai as an outlet for him to avoid harming children is needlessly alarmist. I'd be willing to bet that if cartoons featuring sex with children completely disappeared, the overwhelming majority of people that view them wouldn't even consider harming real, flesh and blood, kids.

Just like if the millions of people that play Grand Theft Auto suddenly couldn't, almost none would go out and kill random people on the street.

So if I post pedobear hugging the tor onion is that enough for a warrant against me?

he prob has porn, just encrypted in the manner he says. or he downloads and deletes it. I really don't know what to think here, because the way it appears is that he would be the type to rape a kid.

FirstNationalBastard: Ghastly: serpent_sky: So, it doesn't say if he actually had any child pornography. I'm going to guess he did, but I don't know.

If he was just talking about it, I suspect no charges will stick -- even if he is a really sick person.

If he doesn't have any CP and never had any CP then he's still going to be farked because now everyone in his town knows he's been arrested for CP. Even if you're found not guilty that's a stink that will never come off you.

Let's face it, the public CP-mania fueled by the media and Pedo-finder Generals everywhere has granted police agencies almost limitless powers to arrest and fark-up anyone they want to. CP is easier to plant on a hard drive than planting a baggie of coke and once it's published that you've been arrested for CP you are forever branded a pedophile. If your lawyer gets you off it's only a matter of time before some Pedo-finder General takes a baseball bat to your head or burns your house down.

.

What, you mean splashing someone's name across the front page because they allegedly have child porn on their computer, and then when they're cleared of all charges, burying the retraction on page 10 near the ad for Big Bill's House of Anal Lube could lead to someone's life being ruined?

I'm shocked, sir, SHOCKED!

What retraction? The first story was factually accurate. He WAS arrested.

In otherwords, there won't even be a retraction.

notmtwain: It doesn't say he didn't have any child pornography.

That was my first thought. Second was as soon as there was a knock on the door there should have been a call to a lawyer, the worst form of life on earth or in hell -- there certainly are none in heaven. That is until you need one.

Heed me: If thou wouldst dress the dead and play amongst them, thou shall join their ranks.

I'm sick of the "LOLS CP!!1" attitude that's been springing up all over the internet lately.
Child porn is really not something to joke about. He wanted to be a pedo like the other cool kids, fine. He's a pedo now. Now deal with the consequences.

TripcodeMel: Heed me: If thou wouldst dress the dead and play amongst them, thou shall join their ranks.

I'm sick of the "LOLS CP!!1" attitude that's been springing up all over the internet lately.
Child porn is really not something to joke about. He wanted to be a pedo like the other cool kids, fine. He's a pedo now. Now deal with the consequences.

What if they are dressed like clowns?

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: In a society like ours, where every parent is absolutely sure that The Internet is out to get their precious snowflakes, even joking about CP is enough to get you at least talked to. And rightfully so. Because almost nobody who's actually involved in CP doesn't talk about it at some point. And because the mean ol' federal government shut down all the corner CP stores years ago, they kind of have to talk about it online, if they're interested in actually having it.

You're talking about child porn, therefore you must be a pedophile.

/So must I, after all, I own copies of Lolita and Gravity's Rainbow.

TripcodeMel: Heed me: If thou wouldst dress the dead and play amongst them, thou shall join their ranks.

I'm sick of the "LOLS CP!!1" attitude that's been springing up all over the internet lately.
Child porn is really not something to joke about. He wanted to be a pedo like the other cool kids, fine. He's a pedo now. Now deal with the consequences.

Now honestly, the Lols reaction is because it is the only real defense against the people who use the cp crime as a cudgel to force through increasingly draconian measures for something that does not seem to be as prevalent as the people who use it as a rallying cry like to claim.

Rational folks have an issue where you have people being charged with it simply because there is nudity in the picture. Parents should not be afraid that a photo of their kid in the bath will even arouse the suspicion of impropriety. Rational people have trouble when the 17 yr old who takes a nude photo of themselves in the mirror are charged with the same crime as the guy who kidnaps a 5 yr old and records a sex tape.

Rational people have a hard time justifying the intense focus placed on this crime, when less sensational crimes get neglected even though they occur with higher frequency and greater harm to children.

That's a big part if it. Any crime that gets sensationalized and targeted with more zeal than necessary gets the same treatment on the Internet.

Are they going to raid the Detroit Free Press for reprinting the comments? How about Fark for linking to them?