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

Yes that hit me to as the law as written it does not matter a bit the reason
you produce or have child porn so the passenger with the camera should be charge.

The minimum sentence is four years for just the child porn so it does not seem all that important point
if producing it carry a greater sentence.

Of course some judges are refusing to follow congress minimum sentencing law for this crime.

Bill seems very au fais with the child pornography laws.

There's no need to wonder why that is.
This is a man who goes on in masturbatory detail about an eight year old girl in the shower.

His main problem with this topic isn't that the businessman was watching child porn, but it was his own children, as if,
like the Al Qaida mullahs children are the property of their parents
and they can do what they want to them.

He talks about the need for children to have sex role models,

and worries about the police finding child pornography in his video collection.

He spent an incredible amount of time trying to groom Gracie
until she told him where to get off.

izzythepush wrote:

Bill seems very au fais with the child pornography laws.

I infer that is French; is it??
I know not French; what does "au fais" mean ?

Did u have any role models, Izzy?

izzythepush wrote:

and worries about the police finding child pornography in his video collection.

Really?? Photography of children involved in sexuality?
I 'm not sure what definition is being applied here.

izzythepush wrote:

He spent an incredible amount of time trying to groom Gracie
until she told him where to get off.

I'm SHOCKED. What did he suggest that she do?
I was peripherally aware of a disagreement concerning the wisdom of marriage
in years to come, but I did not know that he tried to get her to do anything of a sexual nature.

Lets not forget he never misses a chance to stick up for the rights of rapists and child abusers.

That's because the welfare and safety of children should take priority
over the rights of sick perverts to abuse them.

That's because the welfare and safety of children should take priority over the rights of sick perverts to abuse them.

That's because the welfare and safety of children should take priority over the rights of sick perverts to abuse them.

That is because it is thoughts and feelings which are being policed, not harm to others. Once you allow the state juistiction over your thoughts anf feelings you are fucked...you have no chance of enjoying the freedom that your more prudent forefathers enjoyed.

izzythepush wrote:

That's because the welfare and safety of children should take priority over the rights of sick perverts to abuse them.

The problem with "Zero tolerance" is that it can often lead to these areas where , under a more reasonable approach, would not be considered perving. I have some pictures of our two kids ass naked on rugs that we paid photographers to make portraits that we actually displayed until the kids got of a certain age that the poictures embarrased them. Under a zero tolerance approach, I suppose that my wife and I could be considered child porn purveyors (especially if someone came in and heisted the pix and put em on the web).

The only thing that is perhaps a good thing is that, as the facts come out and the alleged porn perv is found out to have been doing something relatively innocent (like looking at pix of his kids that were arranged on a laptop photo album), he may have grounds for a major suit to regain his reputation.

That's because the welfare and safety of children should take priority over the rights of sick perverts to abuse them.

Yes but sometimes ya gotta admit that we go waaaay overboard.
Youve got the guy convicted and the full story isnt even in yet.
I hate all "Zero tolerance" laws.

Suit against whom?? The police?

I 'm not sure how photography figures into it.

This is a man who goes on in masturbatory detail about an eight year old girl in the shower.