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

It's a well known pedophile lure to use puppies or kittens, and that was previously discussed in this thread. Again, you try to claim it doesn't exist in order to defend yourself and your inappropriate interactions with young children in the park.


That's just what George Zimmerman did--he saw a black teen in his housing complex and immediately assumed he was a criminal. But, you've agree that he was right to profile that teen, who you have called a "hoodlum"--although that kid had a legitimate reason to be in that place because he was staying there. So you engage in racial profiling, when it suits you, but then claim that profiling is wrong when it doesn't suit you.
Don't compare yourself to blacks who are genuinely unfairly profiled, and don't assume all men are regarded suspiciously. Do you personally know any other men who were asked to leave a public park because of their interactions with young children?
No I never agreed with you about that, or agreed with you that you were "profiled" for being male. Normal adults, both males and females, realize they shouldn't encourage children to interact with strangers, as you were doing. Your behavior was inappropriate and it justifiably aroused suspicions.

Right--you picked this woman, and you were in your 30's when you did that, so you were old enough to know what you were doing. She wasn't the "wrong woman"--you picked just the kind of woman you wanted--someone like yourself, who was untrustworthy and had criminal tendencies.
And you never showed up in court to defend yourself against her charge of domestic violence, so why shouldn't she have been given that restraining order?

You can't claim to always be the innocent victim and expect to have any credibility. Your various rationalizations and denials just don't cut it. You seem incapable of taking responsibility for your own behavior.

How come no one else at A2K has told us they've had a restraining order gotten against them, been asked to leave a public park because other adults were nervous about their interactions with young children, has considerable knowledge of, and familiarity with, the "dark net" or "deep web", conceals their ISP so it cannot be traced, and has a computer so heavily encrypted they brag that the government couldn't access their hard drive to find what's hidden there?

Sorry, BillRM, this isn't about how blacks get treated, or how all men are regarded, or how courts respond to women--it's about you, you in particular. And it's about the picture you've painted of yourself, quite voluntarily, in A2K threads--and it's a very unsavory and creepy picture.

And I am far from the only one that holds that view of you.

Sorry if you don't like the fact that this thread pops up on a Google search for "hiding child pornography on your computer"--but it does, and it's clear you've given your helpful hints on the subject, in this thread, to anyone seeking that info. That you chose to give such info specifically in a thread on child pornography says volumes about you.

The evil pedophile in the park with a puppy or kitten is a well known urban myth however I had not been able to find one news story about anyone being arrested for doing so.

As far as the Zimmerman case when someone is trying to pound your brain out using a sidewalk to do so it is a little beyond profiling.



As it was you who put those keywords in a postings of your by your logic you are the one aiding pedophiles not me. Shame on you for doing so.

Shame on FF for pointing out that you posted information helpful to paedophiles, but you bear no guilt or responsibility whatever?

I know you're a semi-literate slobbering moron, and that may make sense to you, but not to anyone who doesn't have **** for brains.

I'm the one aiding pedophiles?

You really can't take any responsibility for your actions, can you? In a thread about child pornography, you post "helpful hints" on how to conceal your ISP, as well as how to heavily encrypt your hard drive so the government can't view the contents.
And, in other posts, you've told everyone about the "dark net" or "deep web"--a treasure trove of child pornography--where one can move around anonymously and without detection.

And, of course, these were just more "innocent" actions on your part--just like taking kittens to the park to engage young children, a well known pedophile lure.

It all adds up to a very unsavory picture of you--and you've painted it yourself, and you're stuck with it.

Yes dear the kittens in the park was an innocent act that was suggested to me by my lovely wife who reached the level of deputy director of child welfare for a large/major urban area during her career.

Neither ones of us however thought of how evil minded people like you would/might view it.

Second placing keys words such as you did in your own posting so you could search for them just show that you have no concerns about real pedophiles reading this thread and only care about trying to make debating points.

God, now you're blaming your wife.

You can't take responsibility for anything you do, can you? It's always someone else's fault.

You really are a sociopath--and quite a dumb one to boot. You've painted quite an unsavory picture of yourself, and now you're stuck with it.

Blame my wife no I blame idiots like you that had faith in urban myths and look at all males as a danger to women and children.

Footnote the whole area around where I was living had posters with pictures of the little guys and my name and phone number including the park so a real pedophile would need to be a complete idiot even greater then you to attempt to act on the urban myth and try to lure a child with the kittens after placing his phone number and name all over the place and who live within a few hundred yards of the park in question.

But then we are not talking about logic or commonsense or any real danger to children just your nonsense.

Oh my, pedophiles can find all this evil information you had posted on or at least they can after I posted the needed keywords!!!!!!!!

Silly woman if you had any real concerns about my postings you did an evil deed by postings those keywords.

But then we both know that all the information I had posted is in the public domain and been discuss by law enforcement articles that are open to the public.

Jimmy Saville was very well known, apparently the publicity helped him abuse, so I don't see why advertising for kids would necessarily harm a paedophiles abuse rate, quite the reverse in fact.

And, you are a complete idiot.

He really doesn't realize how idiotic he sounds. Otherwise he would have shut up long ago. The more he talks, the worse he sounds.

Can you believe he really thinks he was profiled as a pedophile in the park only because he's male?

I don't know any other males who've been asked to get away from children and leave a public park. Do you?

Men know very well that we are watched closely by the village when we are seen interacting with children not our own if we are not being supervised by a woman.

Whether men will speak up in defense of BILL speaking truth is however not assured. Men have largely lost our voice, and our will to defend ourselves against the anti male bias which permiates this society currently.

I remember when we used to be better.

Hawkeye remember the time that an image of an old man setting on a park bench and interacting with the playing children was not view as a pedophile but was a symbol of the interrelationship between the generations?

It is a damn shame that we had allow the Fireflies of the world to do away with such a view of the world is it not?

This is how insane we are becoming over the issue of CP driven by self righteous idiots like Firefly.

The society sure will benefit by having the good professor behind bars for years for the crime of doing forbidden academia-research.

Now Japanese cartoons had join the forbidden area for academia-research.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2010/10/15/i-was-doing-academic-research-not-an-adequate-defense-for-child-porn-possession/

Was Doing Academic Research' Not an Adequate Defense for Child Porn
James Kent was a professor of public administration at Marist College in New York. Back in 1999, he contemplated writing a book about the legislation of child pornography, and how to differentiate between what is and is not child porn for the purposes of criminal prosecution.

To do his research, Kent surfed various sites — including “School Backyard” (Editor’s note: Yuck!) — and downloaded lots of images. He sent a note in July 1999 to a potential collaborator on the book, “Sooner or later someone at this college is going to wonder why I keep looking at porno sites. . . Jim.”

In fact, it took a few years for someone at the college to wonder about it. It came to the college’s attention in 2007 during a virus scan. When it did, it led to felony child pornography charges for Kent and a prison sentence…

About a year after his research began, Kent decided to abandon the book project. He wrote another note to his collaborator in June 2000, “I still don’t think there’s anything in this project. . . So here I am (and I suppose you are, too) with a bunch of disks full of photos, at least some of which are probably illegal. Do you want them or should I wipe them or should I send them to somebody else?”

Kent decided eventually to delete the images. His final message to his collaborator in July 2000 was:

“Well, this last batch pretty much tears it. While, as somebody’s father, I’m pretty appalled by this stuff, I also don’t want to get arrested for having it. So let’s do this – if this is a legitimate research project, let’s write it up and tell the deans (and preferably also the cops) what we’re doing and why. Otherwise, let’s drop it in the most pronto possible fashion.

I don’t even think I can mail the disk to you, or anyone else, without committing a separate crime. So I’ll probably just go ahead and wipe them. You have the URL’s if you want to pursue it.

See you sooner or later, no doubt. Kent.

Apparently they decided to drop it without alerting the deans or the cops. But seven years later, while running a virus scan, a college IT guy came across a “work” folder on Kent’s computer with images of scantily clad underage girls. The college decided to turn Kent’s hard drive over to the police.

The work folder had been deleted but remained in the computer’s unallocated space — where folders you delete from your recycling bin wind up, according to a court opinion. Further investigation yielded thousands of child porn images stored in Mozilla and Internet Explorer cached files. While surfing the pint-sized XXX sites, Kent had inadvertently been collecting and storing these images thanks to his browser’s desire to load web pages more quickly.

Kent was found guilty of 130 child porn felonies last year, and sentenced to one to three years in prison. (That seems lenient in comparison to Corey Beantree who I wrote about on Tuesday, who was sentenced to 10 years in Alabama after the Geek Squad found a child porn video on his laptop.)

Those messages sent to his collaborator were not used in Kent’s defense. Instead, they were used by the prosecution to prove that Kent knew what he was doing when he downloaded the images.

“There is no safe harbor for researching child porn,” says cyberlaw professor Eric Goldman. “This is why I call child porn ‘toxic’–there is no easy way to legally cure even a single download of child porn.”

Like TheDataDoc, the courts have little sympathy for those with child porn on their computers, though there are some judges like Jack Weinstein of Brooklyn who think that harsh child porn possession penalties are examples of the “unnecessary cruelty of the law.” (See this New York Times piece for more on that.)

An appeal, objecting to the search of Kent’s computer as unconstitutional, was rejected this week; the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided that his computer was college property, so the college had the right to hand it over to police. Kent is currently in prison, and has lost his job at Marist College.

I spoke to one of Kent’s attorneys, Nathan Dershowitz, who expressed frustration over his client being prosecuted for images that had been deleted and that he could not access, and others that he had not consciously downloaded. “I wonder what’s on your computer that you can’t get to?” asked Dershowitz.

Now might be a good time to clear your cookies and browser cache. Just in case.

I have been following along on this thread,reading but not responding.
I now have a question for everyone...

While I understand and agree with the laws regarding child porn, what about if real children arent used?

I am sure, without having seen it, that in the world of anime and cartoon porn, you can find examples of child porn.
Does it count as a crime if its in animated form?
If no children were involved, how can it be a crime, or is it?

It is a crime...the reasoning being the states assertion that it conditions the mind to abuse children and that such matterial could be used to condition children to cooperate in their exploitation.

Obviously my position is that this is abuse of the citizen and a violation of our free speach rights. The government has the right to punish wrong doers, it does not have the right to attempt to sanitize the thoughts as well of the expression of thoughts of the collective through use of the police force.

Ive been consistent on this one point , that use of anything to emtrap a citizen for reading, atching, or thinking anything untoward , is in violation of 4th and 5th amendment freedoms

The subject had been cover not that far back in this thread but the short answer is you can in theory find yourself in prison for a few years for downloading drawings/cartoons that show 'underage' cartoons characters doing the nasty.

It not under the CP law as the SC throw that idea out so congress went around that rulings and passed a law under the obscenity exception to the first amendment.

So far it is been rarely enforced and the SC had not rule on it but the damn thing is on the books.

It is also a criminal act to participate in adults passing as children in porn...if a 22 year old looks 16 and acts 16 and she either acts erotic or her girly bits are on show then a crime has been committed. The theory for why this should be a criminal act is the same as for cartoons.

I expect that next up will be the criminalization of all porn that violates the feminists definition of rape...for instance women being fucked and fondled as they seem to be asleep, drunk sex or apparent drunk sex, and sex that takes place ofter a vocal or physical act indicating non consent.

The feminist/state crusade to sanitize porn (and my bedroom) is very far from where they intend to end up. Small constant steps are being used under the frogs in hot water theory of how the state should go about abusing its citizens.

I am fairly sure you are in error about the above as even those the Fireflies of the world wish it that way the porn industry however had the $$$$$ to stop that from happening.

Of course they do need to keep records of proof of all the actor and actress ages on file.