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   ( divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

36697 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2003 at 5:05 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

472 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

2003-01-14 06:21:32 PM  

Yes, 'Stinkfist' is about fisting. Hence the name. Hence the lyrics.

What, you didn't know? Who cares. Inside the Undertow album it has an Xray of a guy (presumed to be Maynard, but he has never given a definitive answer) with a candle shoved up his ass.

Oh no! All of that head banging, beer drinking, and lyric reciting you have done has been to the scribings and cater-calling of a self-stated bi-curious singer with a predelicition to the muddy manholes who you wouldn't give the time of day to on the streets.

HAHAHAHAH That's funny.

Grow up you farking homo/pedo phobes. Just because some guy is farked up in the head doesn't mean his artistic work has any less merit. TOOL rocks. The Who STILL rock. Seperate the artist's image from the art and you'll find you just might like stuff you wouldn't give a chance to listen to before.
2003-01-14 06:22:40 PM  
Eraser8:"Personally, I think a first offense of paying for child porn ought to be punished by fine."

Fair enough. How about public humiliation? How about a bunch of headlines calling you a pedophile? How much further should it go?
2003-01-14 06:24:49 PM  

That is, unfortunately, a casualty of being famous. Shoplifting is a much lesser crime (I think everyone can agree) and look at how much poor little Winona Ryder's name was tarnished after her episode.
2003-01-14 06:24:55 PM  
Toxicsafe writes: How about public humiliation? How about a bunch of headlines calling you a pedophile? How much further should it go?

The law has little control over the headlines. But, there is a benefit to public humiliation: it discourages others from committing the crime.
2003-01-14 06:24:56 PM  

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

very true.'s that fit in with the discussion?
2003-01-14 06:27:22 PM  

I guess I'm saying that you have the right to view whatever porn sites you wish...but when it is considered to harm another individual (ie: child pornography, as it is) you don't have that right.

What an atrocious sentence...I apologize.
2003-01-14 06:28:05 PM  
Not to be repetitive but: am I the only one who thinks that, if by some chance he was just doing a research paper (just like Pee-Wee and Gary Glitter I bet), he could have just taken information from the many MANY online encyclopedias? Y'know, those things they call "reference libraries"? Doncha think Encarta will have a more scholarly and more informative edge to it than, say, i.e.: Or did he need illustrations?
2003-01-14 06:28:09 PM  
candyman is here!
2003-01-14 06:28:14 PM  
It makes me very sad to say that I think Pete's "research" angle is a load of horse shiat.

I'm going to go home from work in about two minutes, "research" a blunt, and ponder the farkedupedness of the world.
2003-01-14 06:29:33 PM  
Forget this whole child porn deal...

I wanna know where this free cocaine line is!!!

and tool you idiot, pedophiles are the absolute scum of the earth, if i could, i would form a vigilante group to hunt down every last kiddy fiddler in the world and torture and brutally murder each and everyone i could find..

but that is just my opinion
2003-01-14 06:30:06 PM  
When I heard this story on the news this morning, I thought, "Yeah, right 'autobiography'...suuuurrre". But I gotta tell ya, after reading what he's written, I believe him. Now, if I had never read the document, my morning's opinion wouldn't have changed. I like what he has to say and I like the way he wrote it. With the information available to us at this point, I believe him.
2003-01-14 06:30:31 PM  
Here's the problem. It's like making viewing rape illegal. So, I'm walking along and I hear screams from a building. I look in the building and see a woman getting raped. I think about going to call the cops, but guess what? Viewing is illegal so I just keep my mouth shut and walk home. Later, I get hauled in. Why? There was camera on the building that filmed me watching what happened. They didn't get the rapist, but they know I saw it and bust me for having walked by. That's the situation here with child porn--guilt by association. Anyone who says that they've never seen it on the 'net is either so simple minded with their machine they don't use it for anything or is lying. I've seen it on the web, on newsgroups and in spam sent to my damn inbox. And, the crux is that my lovely MS OS loves to record all these things in caches. Because of this, there can be no sane debate because saying anything about how overboard this witchhunt has gone only means you side pornographers. This is the same view as the opinion that the "drug war" is stupid--you must be then siding with the drug cartels. My opinion is that the whole child porn industry has exploded not because of the 'net, but because they know the child porn laws protect the exploiters. After all, there are three types of people who view child porn. 1--Those who trip across it because of popups, spam, etc or were just willing to surf wherever. Having tripped across it, they're now guilty since any trace on their machine is enough to put them away. So, they sure as hell aren't going to say anything. 2-- Those who want it, who sure as hell aren't going to say anything, as well. 3-- Law Enforcement, who are so over worked that they called a major "world wide sting" operation that netted 130 people. Wow. Those kinds of numbers will certainly stop the kid farking in Arkansas mobile homes before watching football. Simply put, the law has banned the citizens from any effort of protecting itself nor having any rational debate on how to effectively handle the problem.
2003-01-14 06:32:58 PM  
I think he's innocent. You guy's are easily led. His letter sounded sincere, right?
2003-01-14 06:33:03 PM  
What is really strange about the whole situation is that not even the dude running is a child molester unless he is the guy in the pics porking Russian toddlers. He's just an entrepreneur in a really messed up business. We can all agree that war profiteers are assholes, but are they murderers?
2003-01-14 06:33:19 PM  
Using the Bible Code, i see where it proves he done it.
2003-01-14 06:33:36 PM  
I'm your wicked Uncle Ernie;

I'm glad you won't see or hear me,

As I fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about.

Your mother left me here to mind you,

And I'm doing exactly what I bleedin' well want to,

Fiddling about,
fiddling about, fiddle about.

Down with your bedclothes,

Up with your nightshirt.

Fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about.

You won't "shiate"

As I fiddle "abite."

Fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about.
2003-01-14 06:34:06 PM  
I feel sorry for Pete. It seems persecuting people for a smattering of pictures on your hard drive is the latest popular witch hunt. It's a label like that that can ruin you in a second. Seriously though, I get child porn spam in my hotmail account. I've never entered any personal information in any porn site. I'm sure I'm being sold out by other places I've given my email too and fit the demographic as a person who can tolerate porn spam, but my point is that kiddie porn is practically being shoved in your face on the internet.
2003-01-14 06:35:08 PM  
Favorite quote from the paper:

"Booze and drugs are here to stay."

Woo Hoo!!!!
2003-01-14 06:35:47 PM  
ack, sorry about the line spaceing and layout and all...
2003-01-14 06:35:55 PM  
FlameGirl, don't take any offense to this, I really like your attitude and discussion style.

But you seem to fall back on 'drug war' level logic.

And we SHOULD prosecute those paying for child porn. I allready said that, you pay, you're helping. But the images themselves don't make criminals in my eyes, they're made by criminals.
2003-01-14 06:35:55 PM  
Keep in mind, oh defenders of scum...

Townsend has ALREADY ADMITTED to searching for, purchasing access to and downloading child pornography. He just claims he has a really good reason for doing it.

There's no "is he guilty". He's already told you he is.
2003-01-14 06:35:57 PM  
I'm with Jenoffer on this. It seems like he was putting a lot of work into what a bunch of people think is a cover story to hid his own pedophilia. I don't believe that; I grew up with this guy's music, and find it hard to believe an artist of his caliber is a sicko. The worst thing about this whole ordeal is how he's already been tried in the court of public opionion of one of the most horrible crimes in the world.

If he's innocent, I hope everyone that accused him eats a load of hot crap.
2003-01-14 06:36:09 PM  
I know this is going to rub the wrong way on a lot of people, but it must be said.

There are two types of porno. And yes, even two types of childporn.

The first type, is normal nudity, as if you were undressing for a shower, changing clothes or just for the sake of being naked because you like it.

The second type, is sexual nudity. In where that person is showing sexual pleasure to themselves or from/to another person.

The first type of child porn, while maybe bad. Isn't evil. The child could have our maybe wasn't having the pictures taken against thier will. Most of the time, a child doesn't care if they are clothed or naked (depending how how they are brought up tho). And even some kids will let you take pictures of themself while naked. I have a younger sister, who back in the days when she was 8, wanted anybody to take pictures of her while she was in the bath.. but only the bath. But now that shes 14, she has out grown it and gets somewhere between pissed off yet shy and giggly when ever we in the family bring it up. But a naked kid just being naked is not evil.

But the second type of pictures is evil!, picutes of childen being raped or in some other sexual activity. That is when it is evil, no doubt. There are some who are young age who are sexually active and want to be active in it, but for the most part, those under the age of 14 are sexually clueless. They know what it is, but they are to scared to do it. They just don't feel right with it.

But any way, if he just had a few pictures from the local nuditest beach, no harm. If it was a few home shots of some kid, it all depends on how happy the kid looks, and just how bad the pictures has the child showing its body off. but if it was raped/sexual pictures of a child, he needs to die by being burned alive, regardless if he was doing it for "research".
2003-01-14 06:37:17 PM  
Glenlivid, you find it hard to beleive an artist is a sicko?

What the hell planet are YOU from?
2003-01-14 06:39:44 PM  

I don't think we disagree. I think there is a monumental difference between viewing child porn and paying for it. That's when the viewer becomes a criminal, for lack of a better term (in my most humble of opinions).

But I will say that anyone who gets off on pictures of a 2 year old being raped, whether they pay for it or not, is a dirtbag.
2003-01-14 06:40:02 PM  

there are two kinds of people who care about crime: the kinds who care about crimes and the crimes who care about convictions.

It's pretty simple to differentiate: those who care about crime look at how it started, what it led to, what the intent was, and how that can be discouraged.

those who care about convictions, look at the end result, and work their way back, discounting everything that goes against their ideas and believing everything that supports them.

You'll all jump on the fact that he may have been abused as proof of a sexual psychosis, but ignore the chance that his past could lead to research.

You'll quote his lyrics as some kind of proof, yet ignore when he writes plainly on the subject.

He writes 6 pages on exactly what he's found, includes actual research and tips to parents, and yet you think he's hiding something, because it's the only way you can demonize him.

even after he came forward to the press before he had ever been named.

your need to feel superior is obvious, because it's very plain to see, looking at the events of the last week juxtaposed against this year-old essay, that it all falls into place.

That you refuse to add 2+2 shows your immorality, not his.
2003-01-14 06:40:04 PM  
Everyone seems to be more concerned with prosecuting (willing)witnesses to the crime(which I have no problem with) ,than those actually commiting the crime. Townshend paid money to a website based in Texas. Why is nothing being done about the website? Apparently, in Texas, it's all right to rape children, but not to watch.
2003-01-14 06:40:07 PM  
He probably initiated the "research project" a year ago so he would have an alibi if the cops got wind of his sick little perversion.

"Honest, I'm not a pervert, I was just conducting some research."
2003-01-14 06:40:49 PM  
Silver Draghyeon: I find it hard to believe an artist of his caliber is a pedophile. I have as much right to defend the guy on my flimsy reasoning as the rest of you do for persecuting him on yours.
2003-01-14 06:40:50 PM  
Beldraen, your analogy is inapt. Viewing child porn isn't a crime unless you knew and intended to view child porn. If you rent a DVD from Blockbuster and it happens to be child porn, you haven't committed a crime. If someone send you an e-mail containing an unsolicited picture of a two-year-old being raped, that isn't a crime either. What is a crime is keeping child porn, producing it, collecting it, disseminating it, exchanging it, etc. And, that is reasonable.
2003-01-14 06:42:11 PM  
Kotton writes: The first type, is normal nudity

Normal nudity isn't pornography.
2003-01-14 06:42:14 PM  
FlameGirl, then we agree :)

I just, personally, don't equate being a dirtbag with being morth my time, or the courts.

The second he takes an uneasy step towards my daughter (or any child for that matter) is when it becomes worthy of my *cracks knuckles* ...'attention'.
2003-01-14 06:44:03 PM  
Like the Priest said after he came out of the X-rated movie, "That was possibly the most disgusting, perverted, misguided thing I've ever seen . . but I need to see it just one more time to be sure."
2003-01-14 06:44:07 PM  
Well put, Kerouac. I think Pete has always tried to create socially relevant work, and much of what he has done shows a certain amount of research on his part.

Either way, I let the court try him because that is their job not mine.
2003-01-14 06:44:44 PM  

I hear you. In a perfect world, every child would have a father (or parent, even) to protect them from bad guys...
2003-01-14 06:44:49 PM  
Kerouac writes: You'll all jump on the fact that he may have been abused as proof of a sexual psychosis, but ignore the chance that his past could lead to research.

His motives (outside of knowing and desiring to access child pornography) aren't relevant. The money he paid encourages child pornograhpy -- and, that's where the crime is.
2003-01-14 06:45:36 PM  
in my early days of searching for porn on the alt.binaries newsgroups... someone had posted some kiddie porn on a "normal" xxx site. Back then you (or at least I) had to download the file and open it before knowing what you were getting... cross fingers, hope for the best. I got a pic of what appeared to be a boy and girl, both about age 7 or 8 simiulating some sex act.

It was perverted and wrong. I looked at it for about 6 seconds, long enough to determine that it was actually child porn... deleted it, and went on with my life, perfectly content to never lay eyes upon anything that resembled what I had just seen.

I thought of my own children and how I must always be sure to protect them from the evil people that lurk out there in this world.

But to say that I would be encouraged to seek out more? Or that I was terminally uncurious by not seeking out more child porn? That's silly. Same effect when I saw some of those suicide photos or crime scene photos of decapitated bodies or shotgun victims over on It didnt make me curious for more. It cemented my opinion that crap like that turns my stomach.

my 2 cents.

Nor did I write an essay on how one might accidently stumble onto child porn in case the cops busted me.
2003-01-14 06:46:51 PM  
Before anyone else puts their foot in their mouth like Casey2 just did, please read Kerouac's post.

Or else, STFU.

And please: it's spelt 'Townshend'

2003-01-14 06:48:10 PM  
I wanna know where this free cocaine line is!!! In the 80's it was everywhere! I guess you missed it.
2003-01-14 06:48:48 PM  
01-14-03 06:42:11 PM Eraser8
Kotton writes: The first type, is normal nudity

Normal nudity isn't pornography.

Tell that to the people who make the laws. They say that any picute that has body that isn't fully clothed, (hell, even those who are clothed but in very limited amounts) are to be pornographic.
2003-01-14 06:50:57 PM  
Am I the only one amazed that a 70s rock star uses the internet?

Regardless, please let him be innocent. I love Pete's work, and don't want to see him as a criminal. It's a shame the media effect will damn him even if he is innocent, but at least I'll know he's no pedo.
2003-01-14 06:51:07 PM  
Eraser8: You've not been paying attention to the news. There was a cop who was busted because his IP address was traced. The cop had been surfing, found the site, and deleted it all (so he thought) off the machine. Turns out there were still a few images left in his cache. The whole "I didn't intend to view this stuff" doesn't hold. I agree with that that is the way it should be, but that's not been happening.
2003-01-14 06:51:27 PM  
Eraser8-Depends on who you ask. Some people think the Statue of David is pornography. Just ask the asshats who covered up Lady Justice.
2003-01-14 06:51:43 PM  
And before anyone else jumps on this tired train:

Eraser8 - 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?

No? then stop using the argument.

The one thing that's absolutely uncontested here is that he went looking for it.

The question is "why?"

Those of you unwilling to look at this question with a clear head oughta go hang out in the Breast Enlarger thread, because all you're concerned about is being judgemental - and judgemental people may be the only category that outnumbers porn on the Internet.
2003-01-14 06:53:13 PM  

the sick fark PAID to view this stuff


Profit is what drives economy thus driving those that produce child porn

THUS, as a paying consumer, he enabled if not encouraged child porn.

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.

Yes, innocent until but come on, use your heads.
2003-01-14 06:53:51 PM  
Normal nudity isn't pornography.

Tell that to the people who make the laws. They say that any picute that has body that isn't fully clothed, (hell, even those who are clothed but in very limited amounts) are to be pornographic.

If that was true, someone should have called the cops on my 9th grade health teacher for solliciting pornography to a group of minors when he made us watch that video of the woman giving birth.... (shudders)
2003-01-14 06:54:35 PM  
No, stinkfist is not about fisting. It's about desensitizatoin. Hence the lyrics:

"Something kinda sad about
the way that things have come to be.
Desensitized to everything.
What became of subtlety?"

The refrences to fisting make a point about how the things that are talked about have changed so much. The farther into the borderline (or anal cavity) we are,the more we are trying to reach out and feel something that gets a responce out of us.

It also goes back to the liner notes that talk about the anesthetia Ketamine.

/Tool freak
2003-01-14 06:56:05 PM  
FlameGirl writes "...In a perfect world, every child would have a father (or parent, even) to protect them from bad guys..."

In about 90-96% of child abuse cases, it is the parent (or another well-known family member) who is the abuser.
2003-01-14 06:58:03 PM  
In about 90-96% of child abuse cases, it is the parent (or another well-known family member) who is the abuser.

The poster arrived at this figure by the very scientific method of "pulling out of ass".
2003-01-14 06:58:19 PM  
The only one who is CLEARLY NOT INNOCENT is the website. It is the worst kind of selective prosecution.
Displayed 50 of 472 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.