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

Did not someone already stated that she wish she knew where you live so she could send the police after you Hawkeye not that long ago?

Oh **** off you sad twat. No-one will come after you for your fuckwitted, self-pitying "heresy." They will come after you because of the women you've raped, your collection of child porn, the children you've abused, and masturbating in public. You're not a heretic, you're a pathetic little nonce.

It's sexual harassment.

That people might be useful citizens in one area of their lives does not mean they are impacting society at all positively in other areas, or that they do not pose a danger to society in other areas.
When the pictures those people choose to look at and possess are pornographic images of children, they are engaging in behavior which is sexually exploitive of children--and that view is now a global consensus. The viewing of such child pornography for sexual arousal--which is only done by pedophiles--harms children and contributes to the continuing production of child pornography.
They do receive treatment, both while incarcerated and while not in custody. However, the laws, and the possibility of incarceration, are also intended to be a deterrent--to stop people from downloading, and possessing, and sharing, child pornography.
And, as already noted, even on the federal level, people already are receiving sentences considerably less harsh than 5 years, and, on the state level, some people already receive probation without jail time.

But a significant percentage of pedophiles who possess child pornography do also sexually abuse children, and that consideration cannot be entirely discounted. That news article I just posted, from Florida, reported the arrest of people who were engaged in both sorts of activities.

This is one of the most salient expressions of his delusion, that he is the heroic, embattled libertarian. In fact, if he didn't come online to puke up his idiot spew, the silence of the world's response to him would be deafening.

Something along those lines yes....it is part of her continual effort to marginalize speakers who disagree with her so that she hopefully never needs to deal with our ideas. You see Pushy and Set running the same scam in this thread.

You make statements that are not likely to be 100 percent true.

Number one being turn on be pictures of fully function and develop males and females even if younger then 18 is hardly being a pedophile.

Let see there was a very famous porn star who it turn out to be 15 or 16 in her first films instead of the age of 18 pluses she was claiming to be.

So any numbers of her movies are now consider child porn but there was nothing of a child concerning her body.

Let me do a fast google search and see if I can find her name.

Oh Traci Lord who star in porn films at 15.

Sorry but no sexual interest in children is needed to run afoul of the child porn laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Lords

At the age of 15, she was living with her mother's ex-boyfriend, Roger. Posing as her stepfather, he helped her respond to classified ads requesting models. Using a false driver's license ID provided by Roger that stated she was 20 rather than 15,[5] she started in the porn industry with Jim South at the World Modeling Agency in Sherman Oaks, under the name Kristie Elizabeth Nussman.[4]

Shortly after, she was modeling for widely distributed adult magazines, most notably Penthouse, in the same September 1984 issue that exposed Miss America 1984, Vanessa Williams. She quickly ventured into adult movies. Her first movie was What Gets Me Hot!, followed by Those Young Girls and Talk Dirty To Me Part III, all made in the first half of 1984. By the time she was 18, she had appeared in 100 adult films; however, Lords argued in her autobiography that about 80 of those films were composed from leftover and re-edited footage from 21 of her original films.[6]

In late May 1986, authorities discovered she had been underage while making pornographic movies and arrested her, as well as the owners of her movie agency and X-Citement Video, Inc. (See United States v. X-Citement Video.) The ensuing prosecution against the agencies cost the pornographic film and distribution industry millions of dollars, as they were obliged by law to remove hundreds of thousands of her videotapes, films and magazines from store shelves to avoid the risk of prosecution for trafficking in child pornography. (The legality varies with countries. For example, while it is illegal in France to produce a pornographic film involving an actor under 18, the film remains legal.[7])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does also work in reversed a man was on trial for having a picture of what the experts claimed was clearly the body of an underage female the only problem was that when the defense found her she was able to provide solid proof that she was will over the magical age of 18 when the picture was taken even if her body was not.

You really do love talking about child porn don't you?

Most statements, made by most people, on most subjects, are not likely to be "100 percent true".

But the validity of the statements I make tends to beat the validity of the statements you make by a mile. Yours, if one can even decipher what you are saying, tend to be filled with distortions and glaring inaccuracies.

Still trying to defend yourself I see.

And you certainly seem to know a lot about underage porn stars.

And you don't consider Traci Lord to have been sexually exploited by adults--including her step-father? You don't let things like that get in the way of your porn viewing pleasure do you--what's the big deal if she's only 15, right, as long as she looks good to you?

You get creepier and creepier.

Spare us the lurid details of your porn viewing habits, please.

Now let address being turn on by not yet sexually develop males or females ie children in body as well as in age.

That is an illness and a misdirection of the sexual drive and is not even a moral misdeed and seems to call out for treatments not punishments.

The US had decided that looking at pictures not creating them move an illness over to a crime and perhaps we could revisit that to lean more to treatments not punishments for a sexual drive that they was born with.

Ruining their futures and placing them in prison for five or ten years is not going to help them or change their sex drive and they will be out in the society once more and somehow I would bet a large percent of them mad as hell more then anything else.

Oh there are countries were having written texts dealing with children and sex is as illegal as pictures happen to be here.

We need to be more sane on this subject and the first step is moving toward the UK model.

LOL You still trying to claimed that anyone who had a problem with the current US laws on child porn must have child porn themselves.

Sorry I do not even had an old Traci Lord VHS or nine millimeter film.

And before you ask once more neither does my wife.

The U.K. also incarcerates pedophiles on child pornography charges.

Loads of people in prisons suffer from some type of mental illness which is directly related to the types of crimes they commit. That does not mean these people should not be regarded as criminals when they violate criminal laws and removed from society for the protection of other people.
You seem to feel that sex related offenses fall into some special category, when that is not the case. Some people cannot control their sexual impulses, others cannot control their aggressive impulses, others have sociopathic personality disorders, others have addictive disorders, etc. Sex offenders do not merit special consideration when they violate criminal laws.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Stop being such a bleeding heart for pedophiles. Start having some consideration for the children harmed, sexually abused, and sexually exploited by the child pornography industry--and that industry includes those who consume and possess child pornography.

Perhaps by the step father who knew her true age but not by the millions of men who watch those films or even the porn producers who in good faith accepted her proof of age.

However under our current laws all those people in theory at least violate the child porn laws and anyone who had an old tape forgotten in the closet could be charge today.

No intend to violate the law is needed after all.

Right along with you and Firefly.

As an indication of America's insanity having a detailed written story depicting the raping of 12 year old girls is fine but have a picture of a 12 year old with out a top on and you are a criminal.


I probably go further than you, because I say that so long as a person does not touch a kid and so long as this person does not consider lusting after young people a problem then it is not a problem and it is no ones business. I would leave open the option of no treatment and no legal system action against paedophiles.

This thread is about to deteriorate into another episode of the Hawkeye and BillRM show, their own personal pity party for pedophiles.

If you are a sexual deviate, these guys love ya.

Birds of a feather...

Having a Video of Tracy's early work is a crime, and they are obviously not for sale.

Once more I never in any of my posting stated that for the worst offenders prison time might not be call for and I even stated that in some cases the UK sentencing is too light.

My position had been thank mainly to congress looking for more votes we had gone to an insane degree of harshness and we should go more to treatment and monitoring then silly long minimum sentences..............



I am all for locking up the producers of child porn and throwing away the keys however no children are going to be help and a numbers of children are going for sure to be harm by locking up the prof on that plane as you are locking up the father and the bread winner of those children.

Because you reject out of hand any argument that choosing any tool other than the hammer to use on people who are sexually interested in kids could be good policy. Your mind is closed, and you feel the need to protect your closed mind by disparaging all those who challenge your beliefs. It is beyond your comprehension ability for you to understand my motivation here.

Then you run into the argument Hawkeye that you are creating a market that reward the production of child porn as at least a small percents of child porn consumers do pay for such porn.