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

If he wish for bail he should had done something the society consider less serous such as manslaughter with it four years maximum sentence in CA instead of the far more serous crime of having such pictures on his hard drive carrying a minimum sentence not a maximum sentence of four years.

The word insane keep coming to mind over and over and over...............

Your business partner's picture is not pornographic, it's a normal family picture, and the natural response would be to say 'Oh How Sweet,' which I'm sure is how you responded. If the authorities were to conduct a search of your partner's property they might find a few more similar photographs, but that would be about it.

A paedophile would be sexually aroused by such a photograph, and would have hundreds of similar pictures, of lots of different children, similarly they would have scrap books with hundreds of 'coppertone type' pictures cut out. That's the big difference between the two, and common sense can distinguish between normal family pictures and porn collections. That's why police don't arrest parents taking shots of their children on the beach, but do arrest solitary individuals taking photos of other people's children.

Paedophiles and their supporters/apologists make a big deal about what (innocent) pictures may fall foul of censorship laws in order to engender a sense of paranoia and hysteria in the general population. At the end of the day common sense dictates whether or not those pictures are just healthy family photos or part of a porn collection. The laws are interpreted by people not robots, and we should have enough faith in our judiciary to excercise common sense.



Of course not, because you're not a paedophile. If you have a legal video from the 70s/80s in your collection with a scene in it that has naked children, that may fall foul of today's censorship laws it wouldn't register. That's not why you bought the film, and a thorough search of your video collection may show a couple of films with similar scenes that you've probably forgotten about.

Bill on the other hand knows all of the videos in his collection with such scenes. And I doubt there's just one or two such videos. Forensic analysis would probably show that those particular scenes have been watched over and over again, whilst the rest of the film has probably never been watched more than once.

Why is Bill concerned about the legal consequences of a 19 year old married man videoing sex scenes with his 17 year old wife, when he's a 60 yrs plus creepy old 'man?' There's no reason, other than the fact that it would allow him to legally own such pictures. Again, if that case were to go to court and it was shown that those were the only images of a 17 year old engaging in sexual activity, and that those images had not been shared with anyone else, common sense would prevail, it's just something they do to spice up their own marriage it's not child porn. Were those images to find their way to Bill's computer, as I'm sure similar pictures already have, that would be another thing entirely.

Let's say Bill and Hawkeye get their way and pornography involving 17yr olds is allowed, that won't be the end of it, they will then focus on 16 year olds, 15 year olds and so on. The normal human reaction to this story is one of disgust, and concern for the children. Bill's response was concern for the perpetrator and his own computer security. That response speaks volumes.

So I should not care as a citizen of the US that as written that the sharing of pictures between legally sexual partners can result in four years plus prison sentences?

That young teens age girls had indeed been threaten with such level of punishment for sharing such pictures with their partners?

Crazy and insane laws should only be the concerns of the people they directly effect is that your crazy opinion?

Well if you wish for a personal reason to be concern I had three step grandsons and one step grand daughter and as they grow up I do not wish them harm by insane and crazy sex laws.

I do not wish my grand daughter sentence to four years in prison for daring to sex text her future boyfriend a picture of herself and I do not wish my grandsons to to sentence to prison for having such pictures send to them by their future girlfriends.

But being a concern citizen the main concerned is not to have crazy laws on the books on any subject.

Well, I wish that I were equally as confident.
In my professional career, I never had occasion to become involved
with a porn case. The closest that I approached to that, as a young lawyer,
was a case of my client photographing a swimming pool that he had
installed in Plaintiff 's yard (no human beings visible in the picture).
Owner of the realty alleged invasion of privacy; (he had not granted
permission to take pictures of the pool). I won summary judgment.

However, in other cases unrelated to sexual matters, unrelated to nudity
and unrelated to photography, I have seen alarming examples
of unexpected misinterpretations of law by police, FBI and by the judiciary,
e.g., the "corruption" conviction of NY State Senator Joe Bruno
under a twisted interpretation of the R.I.C.O. statute,
that ultimately the USSC threw out, but it was a close call for him.
He was lucky that the USSC even accepted his appeal for consideration.


History has proven that it is very risky
to trust to common sense, or to what is OBVIOUS.
When the 16th Amendment was under debate in Congress,
one version of the bill had a maximum of a 1O% rate being assesable,
but that was defeated on the grounds that if that maximum were enacted
in a statute, then the tax rate woud skyrocket up to 1O% !
It was asserted to be obvious common sense that it woud never rise so high.

In the Second World War, it rose above 9O%, in addition to State n local taxes.

When I was 11 years old, I was confirmed in my belief
that people shoud not be trusted; at least not with more than u r willing to lose.
That applies with special and particular force insofar as government is concerned.

You only worry about 'insane and crazy' laws that apply to child pornography and rape. It's fairly obvious why that is.

I take your points, but WW2 was about as exceptional as exceptional circumstances can get. I'm sure you'd rather pay a higher tax rate and defeat the Nazis than pay a lower tax rate and lose.

With the other two cases you mention, common sense did prevail in the end.

The subjects brought before this community by others not me had been rape laws and child porn laws and for that matter manslaughter laws.

I just checked and out of the 24 threads that I had began on this system only one deal with rape laws and the other law thread of mine deal with the French charging the design engineers for errors in the design of the Concorde's airliners fuel tanks.

Seems that only people who agree with you and people like you should dare to express an opinion on anything here concerning the laws in the US or the UK for that matter.

It's seems that the biggest opinion you had on the matter of child pornography was the security of your own computer.

Hawkeye has already said he wants possession of child pornography decriminalized--he wants it to be legal for everyone to be able to possess and view child pornography involving chidren of all ages.
He denies the fact that a significant percentage of those arrested for possession of child pornography also engage in the actual molestation and sexual abuse of children.
He denies that the children in porographic images are being abused--both by the individuals who created and distributed their sexualized images and by the people who exploitively view and re-view them for the purposes of their own sexual arousal and gratification.
He places the masturbatory needs of pedophiles, both those who actively sexually abuse children, and those who have yet to act, above any concerns for the welfare of children, either those depicted in pornographic images, or those who live in the community.
And this is the debate and advocacy he tries to promote--the alleged "rights" of pedophiles to be provided with their preferred masturbatory materials--child pornography--regardless of the emotional and psychological cost to the children portrayed in such materials, regardless of how this contributes to the further production and distribution of child pornography, and regardless of what potential danger this poses to children in the community.

And, according to Hawkeye, a self-acknowledged sexual deviate, anyone who doesn't agree with him, is a member of the "sex police", a stooge of the government, and a sexually repressed prude.

And BillRM, another bleeding heart for pedophiles, is just plain stupid. He's too stupid to actually read and understand and quote directly from existing child pornography laws, so he posts his usual nonsensical hypothetical situations, ignores all state laws pertaining to the possession of child pornography, which can carry sentences as lenient as probation, denies the reasons we need child pornography laws, and worries more that his step-grandchildren will one day be arrested for possession of child pornography and be prosecuted under what he thinks are "crazy laws" then that some pedophile will move from simple possession of child porn to actually molesting those children. His concern, like Hawkeye's, is for the pedophile. So, he offers helpful advice, in these forums, on how to encrypt your computer so the government can't access your child pornography collection, wails about the harsh sentences sometimes given to these offenders, and worries that his step-grandchildren will need a good lawyer after they get arrested for child porn.

Poor dumb BillRM. The laws aren't crazy, he is. The way to avoid problems with child pornography laws is to avoid breaking them. The most obvious solution evades him.

So, we have two sociopaths, and pro-pedophile advocates, trying to wrap themselves in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to disguise what they are actually talking about, which is their alleged right to possess and use child pornography for sexual gratification irregardless of the damage and harm that is done to children in the production and viewing of such material. As long as the children can't actually see them masturbating over their photos, these two think it's a victimless crime, that's how warped their thinking is. Virtually the entire world is aware of the harm done by child pornography, which is why it is regarded as criminal around the globe, but these two sociopaths are on a morally questionable quest to argue otherwise.

The two champions of pedophiles, and other sex offenders, have joined hands once again to do the all too familiar song and dance routine we have witnessed in thread after thread, including prior threads on child pornography. Their chant? "Pity the poor pedophilies--they are the real victims!". Gee, look what the evil government is doing to that poor guy who looked at some innocuous pictures of naked kids on his computer, they've been saying. They arrested him, searched his computer, his home, and his office--oh, the horror of such an invasion of privacy, they shout at us, never concerning themselves with the horrible invasion of privacy the exploited children in those pornographic images suffer. Our hearts must bleed for the pedophile they insist, ignoring the fact he knowingly violated existing laws--in a public place to boot. And Hawkeye even wants us to hiss and boo that awful "snitch" who turned in this pedophile. Sociopaths abhor "snitches" because they help to get criminals arrested.

And, make no mistake, when we discuss those who view and possess child pornography for purposes of sexual arousal and gratification, we are talking about pedophiles--even if these people have not yet engaged in actual sexual activity with children, although a significant percentage of them have done so.

Hawkeye thinks this is a wonderful thread simply because people have posted to it. It doesn't matter to him that what he is getting in response to his posts is ridicule, scorn, and almost no agreement with his thinking--he's got his platform, he's getting noticed, and that's all that matters to this shallow man. And BillRM ,who seems too brain dead to even notice that his posts are so mangled they are almost incoherent, closes his mind to all else save that uttered by Hawkeye, who he positively fawns and drools over. You were right to label him the drooler, even if you did it for other reasons.

To respond to them, even with insults, encourages them to continue, although in the long run they always wind up alone, taking to only each other, because others get sick of their repetitive garbage. Hawkeye always thinks he's winning some kind of argument, even when he's only talking to himself. That people consider him too repulsive to even bother with, and too devoid of real substance to even debate with, never seems to dawn on him. He will likely take this post as some sort of indication I want to engage with him, and give himself another pat on the back. He's pathetic. And BillRM will drool, agree with him, and type out another mangled, witless post, rife with his usual distortions and inaccuracies, that almost defies transation from whatever strange language he thinks in.

And so it goes...and the internet makes them think they are important because they can see their words in print. What a sad duo of losers they are.

I always been concern with computer security dating back to my ti99a system days.

In fact I wrote a file encrypted program in the era of 300 baud dial up moderns and where there was no internet open to the public.

Oh and where the computers could not deal with anything but very tiny pictures files.

I then went on to download whole disk encrypted programs that would run on dos/windows 3.1 systems.

So once more your attempts to paint me as some child porn trader due to my decades long interest in computer security in nonsense.

It does however paint you and firefly as people who had no faith in their own abilities to put forward you own positions without reaching for some means of personal attacks on those who disagree with you.

Links to peer reviews studies would be helpful at this point Firefly as your claim sound similar to pot users going onto harder drugs that was used to justify insanely harsh pot laws.

Oh I just saw you was able to come up with a study and let me see how well that study is view in the research community or is it just more junk science that you had a love of passing on as having some worth



Strange firefly that you are not dealing with the insanely harsh federal CP law but instead are referring to state laws some of which had already started to be rewritten in a more sane manner.

Next "hypothetical situations" are you claiming that these laws had never been used to harm the very class of people it was sold to protect?

Please tell me that is what you are claiming and I will cheerfully post story after story from google news showing otherwise.

Not really, it shows that you think that the normal human reaction to hearing about child pornography, is not to sympathise with the abused children or the witness who reported this filth, but to think about your own computer security.

Once more my computers has always been as secure as the technology of the time would allowed.

Way way before online/computer technology had advance enough to had created a child porn issue of any kind.

And that's all you're concerned about.

All I am concern about?

I can protect my privacy from the government to a large degree however I am very concern that the US government is using the excuse of child porn to keep track of everyone who used the net and most of whom had not a clue of how to take counter measures.

We need to keep, at large cost, a record of the whole internet population movements on the net for five years to deal with the child porn problem and the government is not going to use the information for almost anything but child porn?

I remember when the cost of cell phones location technology was sold to the population as a mean of getting help to those in need by the 911 system.

Now a main income stream for the cell carriers are selling real time and past cell phone locations to any police department that ask for it no warrant needed.

In the real world issues are seldom either as clear cut or black and white as human nature would hope for Firefly.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

Czech sex therapist Petr Weiss believes that child pornography use may decrease cases of child sexual abuse by allowing pedophiles to sublimate their desires.[1]

Dr. Milton Diamond from the University of Hawaii shows ample evidence that "Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse". [2] "Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose." [3]

If Diamond is right, then all the efforts at exterminating child pornography backfire, and increase child abuse. "As part of his research Diamond also looked at countries that have recently made child pornography illegal and said the rate of child sex abuse there is rising." [2]

Diamond suggests to provide artificially created child pornography that did not victimize any real children. Of course, his politically incorrect research results are met with strong opposition. Diamond's prior research about adult pornography reducing adult sex crimes are much more readily accepted. "If availability of pornography can reduce sex crimes, it is because the use of certain forms of pornography to certain potential offenders is functionally equivalent to the commission of certain types of sex offences: both satisfy the need for psychosexual stimulants leading to sexual enjoyment and orgasm through masturbation. If these potential offenders have the option, they prefer to use pornography because it is more convenient, unharmful and undangerous. (Kutchinsky, 1994, pp. 21)." [2]

I dont think that it has been proven that child porn is the gateway to child abuse, that it is an assertion that has been made and accepted without any documentation. I believe that a lot of child abusers show child porn to their victims but that does not show causation. Neither does the claim that most child abusers are found in the possession of child porn. As we see with the firestorm that erupted a few years back when a study showed that increased porn use leads to a decrease in sexual transgressions against women we cant really talk about the subject either. Some assertions made by the feminists and other victim advocates are clearly not to be questioned, to do so is in and of itself considered to be an offensive act....these people are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in imposing their will upon the rest of us.

How stupid do you think your audience is Firefly? We all know that we are talking about a highly taboo subject here, where those who take the non conformist opinion are routinely beat up by the mob in direction of the victim culture elites....the lack of voices is due to oppression not the lack of having an opinion. Further evidence that you are lying can be had by looking at the thread popularity number and the view number. There are lots of people who are interested in the subject, most likely because they still have an open mind on the subject, but they are lurkers not participants.

Your lack of respect for the intelligence your peers as evidenced by the crapola that you routinely spread around is highly offensive by the way...

Hawkeye we all should be very slow and reluctant to go down the road that behavior A deserve more punishment then seem call for due to it leading to behavior B.

How many lives was ruin in the so call war on drugs with that kind of thinking?

You are in affect punishing someone for not what he had done but what you think he might do sometimes in the future.

Minority Report was a bad science fiction movie and trying to base the criminal justify system on this kind of thinking does not give good results either.

Hawkeye had you taken note that Firefly "debating style" seems to had gone downhill of late?

I still am getting over her comment to me so you wife had CP on her computer also.

Normally she at least pretend to address the issues under debate is a higher class manner.