17
   

Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 02:47 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
I do not regard child porn as such a threat that all repeat all of our privacy rights should be bypass in the search for such.

We Firefly or I at least I am not talking about courts orders directed at individuals but the auto searching of all email by a large majority of the ISPs in this country.

Same as if there was a search of all our snail mail in the hope of catching child porn traders.

This is a foot in the door for third parties searches in the aid of law enforcement that would be totally illegal if it was done by the government instead of third parties acting as indirect agents of the government.

Next what else are the government going to be using third parties to search for in our emails and other internet traffic.
We shoud have done that to the communists,
during the Third World War.





David
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 02:50 pm
@CoastalRat,
I feel certain that Firefly will be along soon to lecture us

Quote:
"STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS GUY, HE DOES NOT MATTER...WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS!


We must be mindful of the PC rules in these kinds of situations.
firefly
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 02:52 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
It is also sad for all of us that an otherwise highly educate and useful citizen will be lost to the society over this matter

No, I don't find that sad at all. That so-called "useful citizen" engaged in acts which are abusive, exploitive, and destructive to children--things which considerably mar his "usefulness".

You probably thought it was sad when Bernie Madoff, a successful and smart businessman, got tripped up by one bad scheme and was sent away for 150 years--what a loss of talent.

Your bleeding heart for rapists and child pornographers, and the consumers keep the demand for more child pornography thriving, says a lot about you, and your character, and your warped values. Makes one wonder about the material you have hidden on your heavily encrypted computer.
firefly
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 02:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
We must be mindful of the PC rules in these kinds of situations.
You apparently do not know the difference between being politically correct and having genuine and legitimate concern for the welfare of children.

Your concern is always for the sex offender, and never for the true victim. I suppose that's because it's so easy for you to identify with the offender. Off hand, I can think of no one, except you, who has ever bragged at A2K about having committed rape.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:02 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
No, I don't find that sad at all. That so-called "useful citizen" engaged in acts which are abusive, exploitive, and destructive to children--things which considerably mar his "usefulness".


the solution to that is virtual reality kiddie porn, the fact that this solution is illegal proves that the goal of the policing is unwanted thoughts and desires, not "SAFETY!"
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:03 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
You apparently do not know the difference between being politically correct and having genuine and legitimate concern for the welfare of children


that has been massively oversold in this society...the bandwagon does not need me.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:08 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Well it's obvious what those 'irreconcilable differences' were,
maybe now those poor kids will get the counselling they need. Their lives were over years ago.
Izzy, its pretty drastic to say that children aged 8 and 11 are as good as dead.

Y woud u say such a thing ?

By your reasoning, if thay were killed in an accident or murdered next week,
thay woud lose nothing.

It seems unlikely that thay or their mom feel that way.





David


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Izzy, its pretty drastic to say that children aged 8 and 11 are as good as dead.

Y woud u say such a thing ?


Where is the evidence that they have suffered one moment of their lives? I know nothing about them other than they are a boy and a girl aged 8 and 10. Pushy must have much better sources of information than I do.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:12 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I don't think it's any more drastic, (dramatic is a better word), than saying that their father's life is over. And their father is just a ******* nonce anyway.
firefly
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

the solution to that is virtual reality kiddie porn, the fact that this solution is illegal proves that the goal of the policing is unwanted thoughts and desires, not "SAFETY!"

Virtual kiddy porn, while not involving real children, still encourages the viewing of children as sexual objects, as objects to be used for adult sexual arousal and adult masturbatory fantasies, and this still presents a danger to the real children in society. It is indirectly encouraging and condoning pedophilia--and a substantial percentage of those who view child pornography do sexually abuse children.

Why is virtual kiddy porn even needed? Do you require it?

You call yourself a child advocate? You really are delusional.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
No, I don't find that sad at all. That so-called "useful citizen" engaged in acts which are abusive,
exploitive, and destructive to children--things which considerably mar his "usefulness".
hawkeye10 wrote:
the solution to that is virtual reality kiddie porn,
the fact that this solution is illegal proves that the goal
of the policing is unwanted thoughts and desires, not "SAFETY!"
Is that the state of the law?
I thawt that there was a child porn case in the late 1990s
that I saw in the NY Law Journal, wherein the USSC approved
the anti-porn statute, but said that child porn using no real children
was protected by the First Amendment. (I don 't remember the name of the case.)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:41 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Here is a good run-down

http://www.adn.com/2009/10/11/970371/legislators-look-to-expand-alaskas.html

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 criminalized all virtual kiddie porn, but parts of it were voided in 2002. The " SAFETY! OF THE KIDS" do-gooders are working for another route to their utopia.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:44 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
I don't think it's any more drastic, (dramatic is a better word),
than saying that their father's life is over.
Well, if he is imprisoned for years and his career is ended,
then I can see where that figurative characterization is reasonable.
His choice 'd probably be either to live as a Bowery bum or to commit suicide.



izzythepush wrote:
And their father is just a ******* nonce anyway.
I don 't know what a nonce is,
but if he had been cawt ******* on the plane,
I don 't believe that he 'd be imprisoned for years.
He 'd have been safer if he had been (consensually) *******
than looking at his computer,
but let 's back up for perspective:
in 2005, I was in the hospital for intestinal surgery.
1 nite, some guy took my picture from behind,
while I was in my room wearing a hospital gown, open in back.

I thawt that it was a stupid n perverted thing to do, but
I assure u that it was a lot better than getting killed
( addressing your remark qua the children's lives being over ).
Tho I was surprized at the great flash of white light from behind,
that event has meant very little to me. Shoud I CARE about that now?

Do u recommend that I become emotionally upset about it ?

By what reasoning do u believe that it is so intensely important??

As a person who has cyber-known u, and look upon u with good will,
I 'd rather hear that someone took your picture
instead of murdering u. Perhaps the people who care for u agree ?





David
izzythepush
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 03:47 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Your sentiments are very much appreciated, but in my original post I was just echoing Hawkeye's phrase, perhaps you should take it up with him.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 04:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Here is a good run-down

http://www.adn.com/2009/10/11/970371/legislators-look-to-expand-alaskas.html

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 criminalized all virtual kiddie porn, but parts of it were voided in 2002.
The "SAFETY! OF THE KIDS" do-gooders are working for another route to their utopia.
I read your link, but it did not mention
the USSC case, except to say that it was in 2002.
As I remember, the USSC said that child porn that did not use real kids
in it had First Amendment protection. That appears at odds with the second federal statutory prohibition.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 04:16 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Your sentiments are very much appreciated,
but in my original post I was just echoing Hawkeye's phrase,
perhaps you should take it up with him.
OK, but don t get murdered.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 05:26 pm
I dont have a great problem with the snitch in this case, though I do with the State Police PR celebrating snitching...but the following is highly relevant to this thread, and the ideas enclosed closely parallel my own as already voiced here:

Tweet With Caution: The Government is Watching You

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback's reaction to a teenage girl's tweet seems trivial, but it is representative of our ever more closely surveilled, pro-snitching society
Quote:
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has been rightly ridiculed for informing on a teenager who had the nerve to ridicule him on Twitter. (All she needed to say after his office turned her in to school authorities for tweeting "he sucked" was "I rest my case.") But the spectacle of an adult male governor (or his staff) monitoring social media for disrespectful comments and whining about a teenage girl's tweet was as disturbing as it was laughable. Brownback has apologized for what he characterized as a staff overreaction, but, all things considered, this fracas over a high school girl's tweet was not anomalous. It exemplified several troubling, anti-libertarian trends.

1) Government officials nationwide engage in cyber-stalking; we are all under surveillance now.

2) Thanks to the anti-bullying crusade, we're no longer presumed to enjoy a right to make fun of each other; so we should not be entirely surprised when government officials listen to teenagers chatter and turn them in for mocking their political leaders. Yes, our obsession with bullying is rooted partly in an effort to protect the presumptively weak from the strong, but authority figures other than Governor Brownback, notably high school principals, have been known to punish students who dare to make fun of them.

3) Snitching is considered a civic duty. It began, understandably, with the post-9/11 "See something, say something" mantra, but these days we're expected to report much more than abandoned backpacks on subways. Students are expected or even required to report incidents of "bullying," which is often broadly defined to include any allegedly disrespectful or offensive word or gesture -- like tweeting "he sucked." The rest of us are exhorted to report whatever we consider "suspicious" activities, informing on people who photograph bridges or buildings, take notes in public, or view forbidden material. Delta airline passenger Grant Smith has been arraigned on child porn charges in Boston because, as the Boston Globe reports, a "sharp-eyed passenger in the seat behind Smith noticed him looking at some images on his laptop."

Hysteria about the effects of child porn has resulted in hysterically harsh sentences for child porn offenses, which are sometimes treated more harshly than child molestation. (Merely downloading child pornography can send you to prison for life.) So I don't expect to read many expressions of concern about citizen informants monitoring each others' computer screens when they appear to display child porn. The only presumed villain in this story is the man caught viewing allegedly illicit material, not the "sharp-eyed" snitch who caught him. But we should keep in mind the essential role of ubiquitous informants in totalitarian societies in which everyone's reading and viewing habits and political views and sex lives are everyone else's business.

We should remember America's sorry history of imprisoning people for political as well as sexual speech (a society that criminalizes one form of allegedly dangerous speech will criminalize others). During early and mid-20th century Red scares, "subversive advocacy" was a crime. Today, political speech is criminalized under the rubric of "material support" for terrorism. Americans should watch what they say, former Bush press Secretary Ari Fleischer warned us, 10 years ago. And don't forget, he might have added, others will be watching for you.

Wendy Kaminer is an author, lawyer and civil libertarian. She is the author of I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional, and was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1993

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/tweet-with-caution-the-government-is-watching-you/249214/

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 06:19 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
acts which are abusive, exploitive, and destructive to children--things which considerably mar his "usefulness".


There is zero reason to assume he himself harm children and the indirect harm of viewing past acts of children being harm seems not to call for a minimum four years sentences and the labeling of the person for life as a child sex offender.

This is not done in any other western country that I am aware of and Federal judges are starting to refused to obey congress in following such minimum sentencing requirements.
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 06:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
We shoud have done that to the communists,
during the Third World War
.

Oh so the fact that we won without needing to give up our freedoms is a bad thing?

You would had been happier if we had turn into a police state?

BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 06:31 pm
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
But I doubt many will share your sadness about it.


One thing we know for sure is his kids are going to be harm in having their father in prison for a decade or so and never being able to earn a good living again.

But we only care about children in theory and as an excuse to go overboard on punishment for behaviors we find sicking.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.3 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 06:43:51