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

Or irony, humour, reality, the list goes on and on.

And a very fine thing it is that we humans are not all the same, as life would be so boring if we were. Where is that liberal love of inclusion and multiculturalism?

I am confident that from the time that we threw the English out
until now, we have never granted government jurisdiction
to control upon what we can legally gaze. That did not happen.
To say that it did, is historical fiction.

It is not the same as what the Rosenbergs did,
violating military secrecy.

This is a very fundamental usurpation of political power.
Where do we draw the line?? When usurpation is tolerated, it sets a horrible precedent.

As per the 9th and the 1Oth Amendments,
government has no power other than what has been given unto it.





David

For someone allegedly a lawyer, David, you're often strangely ignorant. People on your end of the political spectrum have passed laws restricting what we can "gaze upon", as you put it, for more than a century. I suggest you look up "Comstock laws" in Wikipedia (I can't give you the link, because I'm writing this on an Apple product, and I can't make it cut and paste. Windows is more intuitive).

⌘-c (copy) ⌘-s (paste) unless the keyboard is dying, surely?

Ask Nick Clegg, not me.

Ah... liberal vs Liberal...

Chicken Little doesn't realise that being a nonce has nothing to do with multiculturalism.

the equivalent of a whipping with a wet noodle here...... besides, parading your obscure British slang words around acting like you are all that marks you as an elitist prick.

FYI: I am part of a culture, the BDSM sub -culture, this is a multicultural issue.

In truth, the ignorance is yours.
Those laws did not outlaw what people can legally look at,
but rather what thay can send thru the US mail.
Federal Express woud have been another question.

Additionally, u r ignorant of who supported this point of vu.
Obviously, it is theocratically based. Neither George Washington,
Ben Franklin, nor James Madison were theocrats; ergo, Pat Robertson's point of vu
is deviant therefrom; i.e., it is liberal because the USA was never a theocracy.

Pat Robertson seeks to re-shape and CHANGE America
into something that it never was; therefore, his movement is: LIBERAL.

Accordingly, people on MY END of the political spectrum
r strict constructionists of the First Amendment, in letter n in spirit.





David

.

Sentence construction again Hawk, it's not being elitist to expect basic standards. Or to expect that people can keep up, this forum has the subheading 'ask an expert,' not 'ask a thick ****.' Maybe you should move to a forum that's a bit less intellectually challenging.

Your inability to maintain an erection, unless you're beating the crap out of some poor woman, doesn't make you part of a separate culture. It makes you rather sad and pathetic, and a bit of a nonce.

I'm sure i've said this before, but i seriously wonder if Bill's problem isn't pathological. Some obscure condition reminiscent of some forms of autism. He consistently uses infinitive forms when past participles are wanted, and past participles when infinitive forms are wanted. He also consistently uses nouns when an adjective is wanted and adjectives when a noun is wanted. It's the consistency of the gross flaws which makes me think it might be pathological.

I've suggested he may have suffered a stroke, which elicited a much stronger response than usual. Whatever the facts are there's probably something neurological in the mix.

This is how silly we are getting and by the way what the hell were firemen doing looking at a fire victim 1970s adult magazines collection?



http://online.wsj.com/article/AP4a40c95e01b9479db177813f0b7b563b.html


AP: Prof to seek dismissal of NJ child porn case .Article Comments more in New York |

EAGLESWOOD TOWNSHIP, N.J. — An architecture professor arrested after firefighters battling a blaze at his Jersey shore home found a 1970s magazine depicting naked prepubescent girls plans to seek dismissal of the child endangerment charge though a pretrial intervention program, his lawyer said Friday.

Attorney Hal Haveson told The Associated Press that Gamal El-Zoghby acknowledges the magazine found by firefighters Tuesday was his. But the 76-year-old professor at the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, N.Y., bought it decades ago and hasn't looked at it since, the attorney said.

"It was stuff he had discarded from his mind, just not from his home," Haveson said.

El-Zoghby is charged with child endangerment as a result of the discovery of the magazine in question.

It is but one of a collection of 60 or 70 adult magazines found by firefighters who responded to a blaze at El-Zoghby's waterfront home just before noon Tuesday, Haveson said. State police said only one magazine contained images of naked prepubescent girls.

The vast majority of the magazines were Playboy and Hustler magazines from the 1970s, which the attorney said are much tamer than what is generally considered to be pornography today.

"And the fact that it was all from the 1970s reinforces my client's contention that this is stuff he hadn't seen in decades," Haveson said. "If this were someone who was into this, you'd expect to find a lot more, newer stuff."

The attorney wouldn't directly address why El-Zoghby had originally obtained the magazine in question, other than to say, "He had a reasonable, non-prurient explanation for that. It was not because he enjoyed child pornography." He declined to comment further.

The lawyer also said he's not sure that what's in the magazine meets the legal definition of child pornography. A lot depends on whether the images are intended to appeal to prurient or sexual interests, he said.

"My client doesn't know because he hasn't seen this in decades," he said.

The architect had intended for years to throw away the magazine but never did, his attorney said.

El-Zoghby is due in Eagleswood municipal court on Wednesday for a brief hearing, at which the judge is expected to refer the case to state Superior Court, Haveson said.

Ultimately, El-Zoghby will apply for New Jersey's pretrial intervention program, which lets certain first-time offenders charged with nonviolent crimes have their criminal record wiped clean if they complete the program and stay out of trouble. Prosecutors would have to agree to let him enter the program in order to avoid a trial.

El-Zoghby's request to enter the program is not expected to be made until the case reaches the Superior Court level.

The professor is on a leave of absence at Pratt while the school investigates. A spokeswoman said Friday his status had not changed.

"This is all stuff from the 1970s; that's really important," Haveson said. "What someone does in their younger years does not define the man. He is not a collector of child pornography. My client had not paid any attention to this in decades."

—Copyright 2012 Associated Press

Child pornography is child pornography. If the item in question was illegal in the 1970s, it's still illegal and he should face charges. If it wasn't illegal then you have to ask yourself what sort of person keeps images of naked children with his porn collection.

The American governments willingness to retroactively criminalize products and art is impressive......it ranks right up there with what it is doing with tobacco, namely criminalizing using it while it is claiming it is a legal product and exacting huge fines on producers under the argument that the products are not safe even though the government approves their sale. If you want reasonable rational law look elsewhere, because you will not find it here.

Avoiding the real issue, was this illegal when it was first purchased?

The REAL issue is whether government has been guilty
of a shocking USURPATION of power qua what its creators can POSSESS,
including drugs or even anything to look at.
It simply was never given that power.
Admittedly, if the Rosenbergs snuck a peek at the results of the Manhattan Project
in the middle of wartime, there is jurisdiction qua treason and
in regard to the War power, but possessors of either drugs
for personal use or of photografy of people is not related to either of those.

We can't just laff off usurpation & ignore it.
WHERE do u draw the line????? The answer is: NOWHERE.

IF government has the alleged jurisdiction, then it has jurisdiction
to decree & enforce that we can look at maple trees as we walk
down the street, but not elm trees, if such be the choice of the despot.

I stand for the proposition that America shud not be a despotism.
It is supposed to be the Land of the Free.

All 3OO,OOO,OOO of us need to defend ourselves from government.
There is NO jurisdictional predicate for this.
If usurpation of power is tolerated in ANY instance,
there is established a precedent for its legitimacy in EVERY instance,
the 9th and 1Oth Amendments are nullified and there remains NO
security for the rest of our freedom.
It distresses me that more of my fellow citizens don't want to
crack the whip over government and to strangle the damned thing.

If anyone takes pictures of crimes (or draws sketches thereof)
those crimes shud be prosecuted,
(e.g., rape, robbery, arson, murder, kidnapping) not the photografers.
In 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald deserved to be criminally prosecuted, not Abraham Zapruder.





David

Do you think you'd feel the same if you had children? Photographing children being abused for profit and/or sexual gratification is not the same as documenting events.

Yes. I know from experience
that getting fotografed is painless.




The abuse of ANY person shud be criminally prosecuted on its own merits (e.g. Jack Ruby).
That is so, regardless of "profit"; i.e., it shud not be a competent defense
that defendant took a loss, failing in his efforts at commercial fotografy.

Obviously, no person, including children
shud be coerced into becoming involved
in any commerical efforts against their will.
That is what the 13th Amendment is for.





David