Topic awaiting preservation: Round them up...lock'em away... (Page 1 of 1)

Now that is something! Seems that quite a few got 'caught' doing illegal activities...hehe...lock'em up!

Here is the 'list' -

quote:

---

More than 1,300 people have already been arrested as part of the police investigation, including judges, teachers, doctors, care workers, soldiers and more than 50 police officers.

On Saturday Townshend, lead guitarist with rock legends The Who, admitted that he had used his credit card to access a child pornography website. The admission followed reports in a newspaper that Scotland Yard detectives were investigating a "legendary British rock star" and deciding whether to make an arrest.

---

And this is just dandy!

quote:

---

In August last year a Texas computer consultant, Thomas Reedy, was sentenced to a total of 1,335 years for running the internet child porn empire, which had a turnover of more than $1.4m (£870,000) a month.

---

Think he'll live that long? I guess that kinda rules out parole...hehe...and one knows what they do to such types in prison...hehe...

He'll be beggin for the Death Sentence within a few months...

quote:

---

Townshend, 57, vehemently denied being a paedophile and said he had visited the site purely for the purposes of researching a campaign against child abuse and for a book he is writing.

---

riiiiiiiiiiight...

And I'm Abraham Lincoln.

In some cases, I'm worried about how child pornography is dealt with -- there are too many stories of people visiting a site, leaving immediately in horror, but then having their browser cache admitted to court as evidence. I know that I get spam every now and then advertising that sort of trash. I'm sure somebody has to click on it sooner or later, right?

But this particular bust cheers me immensely. If you're giving out your credit card to these people, chances are good that you'd made up your mind to see some child pornography. It becomes much harder to mount the "I got there by accident" defense -- and it means that the people accused probably didn't get there by accident, which gives me peace of mind. Have fun in prison, folks -- I know your cellmates will!

I guess I have a few qualms about this. I don't condone child pornography in any way, but an instant labeling as a pedophile is a bit much to me. That would be like labelling me a murderer because I'd seen "Faces of Death" or a "snuff" film. What they should be doing is incarcerating these people for the crime they commited, and going after the scum bags that made the porn in the first place. I understand that they, through evidence or words, admitted to viewing it. That isn't the same as admitting to doing what is on the screen. If the law is written that viewing=pedophile... (which may be the case, I don't know) then they have to live by it but I think that increasing the crime they commited to something they aren't guilty of is a major, major injustice. I don't care if they make the penalty for viewing this crap 100's or 1000's of years but calling them pedophiles to be able to institute that sort of penalty is wrong in my opinion. Call them what they are and THEN charge them with a penalty such as those mentioned in the article.

If pedophilia extends its description to the viewing of such material then there isn't any case for my argument, it just seems that viewing such material is in no way similar to actually doing what is portrayed. Perhaps it gives some of those wackies the release they need in order to NOT do the things portrayed.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

Well, there's one basic problem I see in your logic Gryth - the only reason the people making the child pornography can continue to do so is because people are paying to be able to view it.

Most of the time when people are arrested for this, there is more to it than simply "having viewed" child pornography...they pay for access to it.

So in essence, those people are paying to have children molested on camera.

That's a big difference from faces of death, where much of the footage is news-archive stuff, and I believe there was a thread on the subject that pointed out that much of it was also fake (I've never seen them..I wouldn't really know...).

I have to echo PT and Gryth's concerns. There are a lot of people who get stuff on their computer that has nothing to do with them with spam and inadvertent visits to sites.

DL, you make a very important point about paying versus viewing and as long as it stayed closer to that boundary, I'm quite satisfied. But I am getting increasingly concerned that an evil brew is being stirred up with it's main ingredient being "witch hunt".

I worry about law enforcement personel and the general public being so technically ignorant that they don't even understand that some people could be charged with this crap while most people probably have it on their hard drives and don't even know it. An inspection of the average inbox and deleted items would probably show as much.

The intensely emotional nature of the subject makes it much harder to defend oneself, too; that's part of the problem. Once accused of crimes against children, it's nearly impossible to live the stain down, innocent or guilty.

I understand the philosophical argument that viewing the material represents your demand for it -- and in turn, a supply much be created -- meaning that even participating in one of those free porn-trading rings we hear about is a contribution to the actual process of victimization. Paying for the content is a much more obvious and indisputable way of showing your demand (thus encouraging supply). But even so, there is a giant gap of morality between those who merely look at the content, and those who create it. The former group is morally tarnished; the latter is blackly evil. The punishments, and methods of prosecution, should reflect this distinction.

I think the current idea is that if you make a certain activity unattractive enough, people will quit doing it, and in the absence of demand, supply will fall off... but I honestly can't see anything but the most ludicrously expensive police action putting a complete halt to the viewing of online child pornography. Want the proof? Try searching for the stuff on Kazaa... a chill will run down your spine as you see the results scroll up the screen. And as Kazaa gets shut down by its enemies, successor file-sharing apps will take its place, each one more anonymous and hacker-proof than the one before it... forming a valuable center of free speech, yes, but also allowing the untouchable spread of certain types of moral poison. Good luck "stopping" the trading of online child pornography, Mr. Federal Agent...

edit: I'm placing my bet now that a public figure who is accused of child porn crimes within the next five years will later turn out to have been framed. In the current climate, it's just too perfect a form of character assassination. In fact, if I were a crooked politician looking to bring down an opponent, it's the first thing I'd think of.

[This message has been edited by Perfect Thunder (edited 01-13-2003).]

A good point DL and I agree. That was supposed to make it into my post but I was pressed for time. Paying for it is what drives it. This isn't to say that the free viewer is doing anything less wrong, but they aren't helping those that make this garbage exist at the least.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

i have to say from what i've read that their investigations are quite thorough, and it does not seem to be the 'one off' viewers of distasteful images who are taken in, but the genuine offenders.
one news report described a network of parents who were selling video of them abusing their kids - and some views even wanted audio so as to hear the children screaming.

now, i'm not one to say "good riddance, and you deserve what you get in jail", but thank goodness at least some of these types of people are taken away.

Hmmm...when one considers, that people that have been abused as a child will often repeat the offense on others, when they get older (a vicious cycle), then stopping the cycle irregardless of how, is a good thing...

Strangely, this thread 'fits' in well with the current thread on Priests and Abuse in the Catholic Church...one must wonder, how many of those abused, turned into abusers...and from the amount of Priests reported as being abusers in the States, one wonders about the amount world-wide...

It's insanity...on a global scale. So any steps to curb this problem (and it is a problem...a grave one), is progress in my eyes. Granted, a small one...but still...progress.

(sigh)

What is wrong with those people? Can't they have a normal sex life?

And while we're on the topic... what in God's holy name is this shit about? Child porn on the internet looks harmless in comparison.

Whoah! That's...heftig! Hmmm...it's surprising to me, that this is not getting more attention.

Since children learn this type of activity from others...the real question is, who's 'teaching' these children? And what form is the 'teaching' taking? I read the part in the article on porn being the problem...but that sounds a bit strange. How does a 7 year old have access to porn?

Many questions...no answers.

Horrible.

Hmm... seems like the UK is reserving the right to deliver the beatdown regardless of intent.

All I'm getting is the CNN Add logo, PT. I wasn't able to find what I think you're talking about...

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

Fixed URL.

How exactly can they catch you?

Why do you want to know? What are you hiding from us...hmmm?

Ruski: In this latest sweep they have largely caught people through their credit card bills. In other cases they tend to catch people through allegations of their abuse (TV presenter Matthew Kelly was questioned as par of the Jonathon King sweep with offences dating back to the '70s) or through rampant stupidity (like Gary Glitter taking his computer to be repaired with large quantities of images on the hard disk).

-------------

Two articles in todays Guardian have rather thrown a spanner in the works of my arguement that bans on things like filming school plays are stupid as paedophiles are out looking for stronger material (the first is from a convicted paedophile and he comes over as pretty self-deluding):
www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,880251,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,880035,00.html

I must admit I was considering putting a picture of myself online from when I was little (and just happened to be naked) as it is a great picture but the discussion in those links has made me much more uncomfortable about doing that. Question for the parents amongst us - does it make you reconsider putting pictures of your kids online?

Looks like R Kelly's head is also on the block:
www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,880617,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I would say that R.Kelly is going to jail...that evidence, if real, is kinda hard to beat...and his courtcase is far from over...his next song might be 'Jailhouse rock'...

And no, I would never put pics of my child on the internet. No way. Do you put pics of your child in the window, or on signs on the lawn?
Didn't think so...

Might as well take out a full-page add in the newspaper...'Here he/she/they are, come and get them...' We are talking about Predators, here...of a sexual nature. Personally, I wouldn't suggest giving them any easy prey...but that's just me.

WS: I'm pretty much in agreement with you I'm afraid.

What about childhood pictures of yourself? I'm not happy with the idea that some pervert would be getting his rocks off over pictures of myself as a child (my skin is crawling at the thought of it).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yes, but imagine the amount of...'pleasure' you would get from beating the living s**t out of some whacked-out pedophile who responded to your pic...

Invite your friends, so they can all get in on the fun...

Pedophile punching bags...it's all the rage...

WS: Hmmmmmmmmmm but what if they were on another continent and you could provide them with accelerated assisted stairway descent?

Another aspect is that if that picture of me was taken today rather than 30 years ago my parents would probably have been investigated by the police - its sad that innocence is lost

[edit: and I don't mean pictures of me as an adult (they'd probably be locked up for spreading the horror) but if I was a toddler today]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps, the links you posted disturb me. There is definitely a large grey zone where even the whiter end is being put in jail.

quote:

---

One young guy I knew, a journalist and photographer, claimed to have been convicted for downloading two dozen pictures by the noted photographer David Hamilton, who specialises in art pictures of young girls. You can buy the pictures in a book, but on the net they might be considered child pornography.

"They are beautiful pictures," he would say. "Beautifully made pictures of beautiful girls."

---

Is this man a pedophile? I'm glad I don't have to sit in judgment of him. But at the same time, I feel uncomfortable with the decisions of those who do.

PT: Quite - it is all developing into a legal nightmare. However, I think part of the point that the author was getting at (from the context) was that a lot of these people are deluding themselves into thinking that they aren't actually doing anything wrong. The impression I got from that bit was that he actually had more images than that but was using art as his cover story (a cover story for himself).

I could be wrong - in which case things have certainly got quite scary - there was a big outcry last year when an artist displayed photographs of her children some of which were in a state of undress.

You really have to be so careful what you do - if you are a lone male these days it is unwise to even speak to unaccompanied children just in case.....

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

No fear of that -- I'm terrible with children. I talk to them like they're adults, which they seem to like, but it's just because I've nary a clue how to speak to them as kids. But it's a tragic world when "he's so good with kids" turns from a marriageable trait to a terrifying one.

Woah, woah, woah! Back up a minute!

Who ever said that pedaphiles were just men??!!?? You are foalling into the trap, of thinking that this is limited just to men...whereas my researches have shown that it isn't.

Female pedophiles are, in some cases, much worse...it's just that documented cases are rare, and that society (esp. the woman's lib movement) doesn't want to face this blackest of taboos...that women, too, are pedophilic...

In every documented case, of a female pedophile, that has abused young boys, those boys grow up to be abusers...

It's just that no-one is talking about it...and apparently, the women libbers don't want it out in the open...violence and abuse is supposed to stay restricted to men. It totally blew my mind, the documented cases of women pedophiles...and abusers. And among lesbians, the amount of abuse that has been documented is also shocking...it's just that the lesbian scene is really mum on this type of stuff...

My opinion, of men as beasts, have changed somewhat, since I started researching all this...the problem seems to be more of being in a postion of power, than of sex.

WS: I wasn't implying that they were all men just that a lone woman would be treated with less suspicion (unless, of course, it was a baby and then they could always be a potential baby snatcher).

[edit: Anyway here in the UK cases like that of Rosemary West and Myra Hindley have rather disabused us of these simple generalisations]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor