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

Sorry I had already posted the private sharing of pictures between minors and if that 15 year old sold that picture to me he and I would both come under the child porn laws.

It would not be a crime for his girlfriend to send it to him or for him to own it for his private use and would not come under the child porn law.

That would he the limit of the exception in the law.

If he share the pictures with his friends or post the pictures on facebook or sold the picture to a dirty old man he would have a legal problem.

However if he loss this cell phone and someone found the picture or pictures on them he would not be in trouble.

Let see if you can bend this posting into some crazy direction.

THANK U, for leaving out the mistakes, Bill!!!
It really makes it much nicer and more pleasant
if u just write it ordinary and normal! Truly: Thank U! I mean it.





David

Kiddest thou, me??
There is a very fine distinction between 2nd degree murder
and involuntary manslaughter.
I 'm reminded of a fellow who 1ce told me that he had instructed
his wife that if she were ever the victim of an attempted rape,
that she shoud not resist, not anger the rapist, because he loved her
with such unlimited intensity that he coud not bear to lose her
and he wanted her around to live out her life, surviving the rape.
I imagine that if I had a child, I 'd much rather have her or him
survive a rape or a sodomy than to fall victim of manslaughter!!

Shoud we be more pleased and satisfied if Coach Sandusky
had committed manslaughter upon those boys
instead of sodomizing them and leaving them alive????
I favor their survival.



"Its better to be tried by 12 men than carried by 6."
When I was selecting juries, representing defendants,
I used to tell them that "anyone can accuse anybody of anything."
That does not make any allegations TRUE.

U have no way of knowing what the charges will be.
U can only fight to survive the emergency at hand
(tho there r some preparations that u can make to reduce
the chances of criminal litigation, e.g.: not using under powered guns,
so that u will not need to shoot the target too many times to end the threat.
There have been problems with that.





David

I don't know anything about Coach Sandusky. However, we're talking about two different things. You're talking about the consequences of the crime. I'm talking about the thread posed by someone who had served time for manslaughter, as opposed to someone who had abused children. The paedophile is more of a threat, but obviously the consequences of manslaughter are worse.

With as often as females lie about sexual transgression combined with the feminist/State assault on men it is darned easy to imagine circumstances where I end up facing a rape or child abuse charge. Most people are very careful about being alone with kids now, and the smart ones are now very careful about picking the women that they are alone with because they too can easily imagine being put on child abuse or rape charges.

Your argument fails.

Among their other problems, neither Hawkeye nor BillRM can actually discuss the legal issue of child pornography, or understand why the possession and viewing of it is a crime, despite the fact that such behaviors are regarded as criminal pretty much everywhere on the globe, and for the same reason--the viewing and possession of child pornography continues the abuse and sexual exploitation of the children in these images as well as creating the demand that keeps child pornography a thriving industry. So, virtually everyone under the sun can understand these basic issues, and agrees upon them, except for these two. Since the only essential difference between a delusion and reality is the number of people sharing the belief, it is quite reasonable to conclude that these two are divorced from reality.

Of course they had to shift the discussion to an idiotic comparison between child pornography possession and manslaughter--two completely unrelated crimes. They can't discuss the rationale for the child pornography laws, nor can they discuss the laws themselves--they haven't read the laws, nor have they cited the specific laws verbatim. They flaunt their ignorance by criticizing laws they haven't read and aren't familiar with. So, why not discuss manslaughter? Why not discuss burglary too. Or identity theft. Or anything else under the sun that has absolutely nothing to do with child pornography.

And, of course, they harp on what they consider to be the "cruel and excessive" punishments that child pornography violations may carry, since they fail to understand why these crimes are regarded quite seriously in terms of the harm they cause to the sexually abused and exploited children involved. They deny the harm or try to minimize it, or demand "proof", again demonstrating that what is more than obvious to most people on earth eludes them. They do not share the same reality as most people--which is, again, evidence that rational discussion of the topic is beyond their capacity because their thinking begins with disordered premises. They see no victims, so they conclude there is no crime, so, of course, the punishments are too harsh. They want dead bodies, or burned flesh, or visible physical scars on children. They have no normal capacity to understand emotional and psychological damage to children, or profound violations of privacy issues, or the lasting harm caused by sexual exploitation, their concern is only for the pedophile, with whom they apparently identify, and helping that pedophile to enjoy minimal sanctions for his crimes involving child pornography.
They erroneously argue "justice" for the pedophile involved with child pornography, forgetting that "justice" is for the victims and the safety of the community at large. Defendants are afforded just treatment, in terms of due process, but the sentences they receive are the expressions of "justice", justice is rendered by punishing the guilty. And, in terms of the child pornography laws, the sentences, around the globe, have become increasingly harsher as appreciation of the severity of these crimes against children has deepened. Again, this reality eludes Hawkeye and BillRM because their perception is so faulty and skewed. They are right, the rest of the world is wrong. They might as well be arguing that the earth is flat.

Trying to discuss child pornography, or any sexually related crimes, with these two is like trying to discuss religion with JGoldman10--it's impossible, there is no discussion. No matter what is said to Goldman, he responds with his same fixed, rigid comebacks. He can't shift perspective, he can't absorb anything said to him, and both Hawkeye and BillRM respond in much the same manner, simply re-chanting their own mantras just as Goldman does. Except Goldman realizes that there is no discussion on the issue, he knows he's preaching and not debating. Hawkeye and BillRM delude themselves that they are "debating" when no such thing is taking place. They, like Goldman, simply repeat themselves.
And, no matter the issue, for Hawkeye and BillRM, the laws are always "unfair" and wrong, just as, for Goldman, the Bible is always right. The similarities between the three are quite striking. And, just as people are aware of Goldman's psychological problems, it is difficult to ignore the problems displayed by Hawkeye and BillRM. And just as people interact with Goldman in an insulting manner, sometimes for sheer amusement, the same occurs with Hawkeye and BillR, except these two think they are meriting attention for something positive--Hawkeye thinks that page views of this thread matter as an indication of substance and regard. He foolishly thinks that Goldman is a train-wreck, but denies that people view him similarly, and view his threads for similar reasons.
There is a striking lack of substance in the posts of Hawkeye and BillRM, just as Goldman lacks substance, and the three of them are all quite smug, insulting, self righteous, and mainly motivated by insatiable needs for attention, something all three of them can apparently satisfy only in cyber space. There are at least two threads on the board where Hawkeye and BillRM have only been talking to each other, and reinforcing each other's skewed perceptions, for quite some time, and, no doubt, they think they are "winning" some imaginary debate in those threads too.

Personally, I don't give a damn what these two think, on any issue, any more than I really care about Goldman thinks. And I am of a mixed mind on the issue of responding to them, as is the case with Goldman. On balance, I do think it is crazy to keep feeding them, unless one just wants to hear more of the same from them. On the other hand, there is some perverse satisfaction in batting them around, simply for amusement, not unlike playing the Acronym game or any of the trivia games on this board. That's really what they are--trivial entertainment. To take them seriously would be a joke.

And, I love to see their reactions to posts like this. It's just like watching Goldman get all puffed up and doing his song and dance.They are all so predictable, and, in some ways, amusing to watch, in a sick sort of way.

So that is your answer to the demand that you show harm or else you can not justify the current (and new) harsh penalties for looking at child porn, that anyone who does not agree with these laws must be cracked? I can understand why you want to evade the point, but any reasonable rational person must conclude that your emotional call to squash debate does not win the argument for you, and that it is your frantic attempt to avoid the debate. Most everyone does hate pedophiles, but a just society does not punish on the basis of popularity, they punish on the basis of degree of transgression and degree of harm done. The over riding question in this thread and several others of mine is this..."Is American any longer a just and civilized nation?" . I know that you Firefly are offended as hell that someone has the temerity to question the current child porn laws, but I doubt that your call to bury our heads in the sand and thus go on blind faith that the state will justly use the enormous powers that it has collected over our erotic lives is going to fly.....we can not forever escape the evidence that we are increasingly barbaric, that we are not as good at this civilization game as our ancestors were.

Never had a problem with it being a crime except in the private sharing of pictures between a young couple.

My problem is that in no other western country is the punishment at the insane repeat insane levels it is in the US.

Take note those insane levels are not stopping the increase in sharing less alone reducing it.

In facts I came across some studies that indicate the very fact it is so illegal is one of the factors causing people to collect it.

the law is:

What is criminalized+penalty+how rigorously it is enforced....my argument with sex law is that too much is criminalized, the penalties are draconian, and the government is searching for sexual evil-doers with a zeal that is out of line with the magnitude of the problem.

Sex law is broken and it needs to be fixed at several points.

Fighting child porn is a great excuse to keep tracking records for five years on every man and woman and child on the internet.

If law enforcement get their way I bet that the tracking information will used for almost everything but child porn enforcement.

The government is using child porn plus piracy as the rationale for why it must control the internet. It is currently making big steps into taking it over. The state is always seeking to gain more power, and sexual morality policing is one of the current favorite Trojan Horses because it keeps working....

It a good thing that the interenet is design to not be control or taken over.

Those big steps are a joke and will not work.

DNS nationwide filtering/blocking for example would take all of ten seconds to bypass and get the rest of the world annoy at us beside by breaking the international DNS system and that is the level of their plans.

I dont share your optimism...while I dont understand such stuff as IP scramblers I dont believe that there is any defense that will work if the government is insistent about sifting the internet for evil doers.

The so call evil doers are the experts on the web far more then the government.

The government is hardly all powerful when it come to the net.

A thoughful and highly articulate response, met with the usual atavistic grunts.

I think you've just validated it. I was talking about normal people, not nonces like you.

LOL you consider yourself normal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I consider you barely hominid.

Considering his rudimentary grasp of English, Izzy, I doubt if he knows what a nonce is.

I never knew that Bill had any kind of a grasp of the English language.